SUBHASH CHANDER AGGARWAL Vs. VINOD KUMAR AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR.Suhail Dutt for the respondent alongwith MR.Om Prakash, Deputy Registrar, MR.M.C.Gupta, Assistant Registrar and MR.C.Topo, Trade Mark Examiner in person. Order (Oral) RE: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF CONTEMPT In this case, notices were issued to MR.Om Prakash, Deputy Registrar and MR.M.C.Gupta, Assistant Registrar, Trade Marks.

(2.) THE present appeal arose out of an order passed by Assistant Registrar, Trade Marks in Trade Marks Opposition No.DEL 6766 whereby the opposition to the registration of the trade mark covered by Trade Marks Application No. 453309 was rejected and the mark applied for was directed to proceed to registration. An appeal was preferred against the said decision vide CM(M) 419/94 wherein the following order was passed on 19.9.1994. "C.M.3533/94 Notice for 2nd December, 1994. Records be called for from the Trial court. Meanwhile, stay of further proceedings regarding registration of the impugned trade mark. Against the said trade mark covered by the same application No. 453309, another opposition to the said application had been entered which was registered as DEL 6716. After the stay order was passed in CM(M) 419/94, the counsel for the opponents in Trade Marks Opposition No.DEL 6716, namely, Mr.B.S.Narang wrote to the Trade Mark Registry informing them of the appeal having been admitted against registration of the trade mark covered by the aforesaid application and requesting for an adjournment. THE Trade Marks Registry was served with the said order of this Court on 17.10.1994 and there is an endorsement on the copy received by the Trade Marks Registry, which is as follows:- "Examiner/Assistant Examiner - Put up with the file". Yet subsequent to such service of the order, the Trade Marks Registry proceeded with the hearing of the trade mark opposition No.DEL 6716 to the same mark in respect whereof further proceedings regarding registration had already been stayed. Not only the Deputy Registrar, trade Marks proceeded to hear the matter and decide the opposition on merits, but further ordered the mark to proceed to registration which was in violation of the orders of this Court and for this reason, this court had, on 23.2.1995, issued notice to Mr.Om Prakash, Deputy Registrar, Trade Marks requiring him to be present in court. THE Deputy Registrar appeared on 11.10.1995 and explained that the factum of stay was not brought to his notice by the Assistant Registrar, Mr.M.C.Gupta, as a consequence whereof, notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him was issued to Mr.M.C.Gupta. Today, both the Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar have appeared before me and as required by this Court, besides the Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Trade Marks Examiner have also appeared pursuant to order dated 15.2.1996. Mr.Om Prakash, Deputy Registrar and Mr.M.C.Gupta, Assistant Registrar have been heard in Court. THEy seemed to be blaming one another for not noticing/pointing out the fact of the stay to the Deputy Registrar before hearing the trade mark opposition. Mr.C.Topo, Trade Marks Examination took shelter behind his alleged illness which he is alleged to have suffered in the month of November, 1994 and pretended to be ignorant about the facts of this case. In the course of the hearing, both the Deputy Registrar and the Assistant Registrar have tendered unqualified apology to this Court and have stated that they hold this Court in high esteem and had no intention to show any kind of disrespect to Court or commit any disobedience of the orders of the Court. THEy have felt sorry for the improper filing and lack of vigilance on the part of their office. However, it cannot be disputed that what was done, was in total disregard of the orders passed by this Court and even if it is assumed that it was not intentional, such conduct atleast shows extreme negligence or culpable negligence. For that, everyone in the Trade Marks Registry, who was instrumental in concealment/ignoring the fact of stay, as mentioned above, needs to be at least reprimanded for such negligence, if at all it can be very liberally treated as an act of negligence only and not deliberate disobedience. Since the trade mark has not so far been registered, there was no question of certificate of registration being issued and for that reason, no harm/prejudice has resulted to the appellant in this case. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances and the unqualified apology tendered by Mr.Om Prakash, Deputy Registrar and Mr.M.C.Gupta, Assistant Registrar, Trade Marks and also looking to their demeanor wherefrom it appears that they are repentant and sorry for this lapse, I would treat this as a mitigating circumstance and do not propose imposing any harsh sentence except for reprimanding both with the further direction to be more careful and desist from showing any disregard to the Court's orders or the procedure established by law. Accordingly, they are both hereby reprimanded. No further orders need be passed on the notice of contempt issued, except for what is stated above. C.M.(M) No.99/95 Admit. C.M.No.4231/95