Central Information Commission
Usha Chandrakant Nimje vs Office Of The Controller General Of ... on 8 October, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली- 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/CGPDT/A/2019/602043
In the matter of:
Usha ChandrakantNimje
... Appellant
VS
Sr. Examiner of Trade Marks & GI CPIO,
Trade Marks Registry,
Intellectual Property Bhavan,
Near Antop Hill Head Post Office, S.M. Road,
Antop Hill, Mumbai - 400037
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 22/10/2018 CPIO replied on : 22/11/2018 First appeal filed on : 28/11/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 01/01/2019 Second Appealdated : 03/02/2019 Date of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Date of Decision : 07/10/2020 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Mr. ParagBhendarkar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks & PI & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the status of trade marks application No. 3877334 submitted by the appellant.
2. Provide the informationwhether trade mark with the name of "ADIWASI HALBA, HALBI SPECIAL-TRIBAL FOODS-SAWAJI" is available for registration.1
3. Provide the hearing date for trademarksapplication No. No. 3877334 filed by the appellant.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the complete information.
Submissions made by Appellantand Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present to plead her case despite the fact that she was duly informed about the audio hearing through email mentioned in her RTI application and during the hearing also, several attempts were made to connect to the appellant but her number was switched off. Under such circumstances, the Commission will decide the case based on the contentions raised by the appellant in her second appeal memo.
In her second appeal memo, she had submitted thatincomplete information was provided to her by the CPIO and on point no. 3 the desired information has not been provided either by the CPIO or the FAA.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his recent written submissions dated 23.09.2020.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records and particularly the detailed submissions of the CPIO dated 23.09.2020, it is noted that the order of the FAA read alongwith the recent submissions are proper and detailed for all the points raised in the RTI application. The appellant is aggrieved as according to her it has not been informed as to whether the different trade mark names given by her are available for registration purpose or not. Per contra, the FAA in his order has clearly stated that the search of trademarks which may be same or similar to a particular trademark in respect of particular goods and services may be made through the public search tool made available on the official website. This statement has been further elaborated by the CPIO in his recent written submissions wherein he has stated that it is not possible to access any trademark data by particular name as was requested by the appellant because there are 45 classes for the goods &services and each class has ample data. The Public search facility which is already made available to thepublic in their official website is the only option to access the particular 2 data of pending or registeredtrademarks. The Commission does not find any flaw in the submissions of the CPIO as it is for the appellant herself to access the particular data of pending or registered trademarks on the website given. Hence, no further relief can be given to the appellant.
With regard to point no. 1, it was enquired from the CPIO as to what is the status of hertrademark application No. 3877334. To this, the CPIO informed that certain objections were raised in her trademark application and despite the fact that three hearing notices dated 18.06.2019, 02.08.2019 and 27.01.2020 were sent to the applicant's correspondence address & email also, she failed to the attend any of the hearings and finally her application was rejected. The Commission accepts the submissions of the CPIO and hence no relief can be given on this point also.
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the submissions of the CPIO and does not find any scope for further intervention in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna(वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णतस या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182594 / दनांक/ Date 3