Central Information Commission
Yogidhar S K vs Office Of The Controller General Of ... on 9 November, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No. CIC/CGPDT/A/2020/663079
In the matter of:
Yogidhar S K
... Appellant
VS
1.Central Public Information Officer
Trade Marks Registry, G.S.T Road,
Guindy, Chennai - 600032
2. Central Public Information Officer
Trade Marks Registry,
I.P. Bhavan, Beside Chanakyapuri Overbridge
Next to AMC City Civic Centre
Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad - 380061
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/10/2019 CPIO replied on : 15/11/2019 First appeal filed on : 13/11/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 02/12/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 21/02/2020 Date of Hearing : 08/11/2021 Date of Decision : 08/11/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Rajamanickam, Sr. Examiner of Trades &CPIO;Sikandar Singh, Sr Examiner of Trade Mark & CPIO - both present over VC 1 Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information with regard to the products manufactured by Camex Wellness Limited having wordmark Companio:
1. Provide reasons for not providing description of Tens & Ems technology on the website ipiindiaonline.gov.in - goods and services description of Companio.
2. Whether Tens & Ems technology products come under class 10? Provide detailed explanation.
3. Description of products of Companio on the website ipiindiaonline.gov.in states as full of massagers which vibrate. However, the user manual of the product, under FAQ, states that Foot Pulse is not a massager and it does not vibrate. Provide explanation as to why different description has been given on the said website.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
In second appeal , the appellant has stated that after his RTI was transferred from place to place and he finally got a reply that the desired information does not exist. He desires that the information as asked for in the RTI application be provided to him. This was reiterated during the hearing and he asked for a copy of the application of the third party.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the reply given by the FAA who stated that the reply given by the CPIO,TMR, Ahmedabad was given in time.The reply indicated that the required information does not exist. The respondent from Ahmedabad clarified during the hearing that all the information as sought for is available on the website. Therefore there is nothing more to give. Observations:
From a perusal of the reply given, the appellant was informed that the sought for information does not exist.Once the CPIO/FAA has stated so, no further action can be taken as what is not avaialble or existing cannot be given. Further, what is available is there on the website. Moreover, the nature of the information sought is either seeking reasons, clarifications and explanations which are not covered under Sec. 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, the 2 Commission does not find any flaw in the reply given and no relief can be given to the appellant.
Decision:
In view of the above, no further action is warranted.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3