CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
B-Wing, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No.2463/ICPB/2008
F.No.PBA/08/120
July 21, 2008
In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal
Public authority: Trade Marks Registry
Mr. D.J. Awatrmani, CPIO
Mr. N.R. Seth, Appellate Authority
FACTS
:
By his RTI application dated 11/1/07 addressed to PIO Trade Mark Registry,
Mumbai, the appellant has sought the following information: –
1. Whether M/s R.M.V. Hardware & Electrical, Alligar is the only trade mark holder
of “Vijayan” trade mark.
2. Whether the Trade Mark Holder of Vijaya duly authorized to manufactured handle
and locks and the only authorized company is R.M.V Hardware, Alligar and no
other firm is authorized to use this trade mark.
3. Whether Registered Trade Vijayan of the appellant is for the whole of India this
trade mark has been renewed from time to time (3 times) in 1997, 2004 and is
valid till 2014. In addition this information has been sought on of as many assure
14 points from the trade mark registry in the same matter.
The CPIO vide his letter dated 26/3/07 returned the application to the applicant
requesting him to send the DD for Rs.10/- payable to the Registrar Mumbai and the
Postal Order submitted by the applicant was returned. Thereafter, the appellant filed first
appeal dated 28/7/07 before the AA. The AA responded vide letter dated 7/8/07 directing
the CPIO to accept the Indian Postal Order also as fee and that he should be provided
information free of cost.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 21/8/07 providing point-wise response to the
appellant. On not being satisfied with the response, the appellant filed instant appeal
before the Commission on 7/1/08. Comments of the Public Authority was called for vide
letter dated 25/28-2-08. The comments have been received vide letter dated NIL
(received in the Commission on 28/3/08). It transpires from the comments that the SBI
refused to accept the Indian Postal Order and matter was taken up by the respondent with
the SPIO and later on it was sorted with the Post Office who advised that the respondent
to get the Indian Postal Order encashed from the Post Office. Consequently, no reply
was given by the respondent Public Authority to the applicant. On the appeal of the
1
applicant reply was given to the appellant on the 4 questions asked by him. It has been
stated by the CPIO, in pursuance of direction of the AA, point-wise reply has already
been given to the appellant. Broadly, the factual information has been given indicating,
rules position for violation. The concerned firm in whose name Registered Trademark
exists has to take legal action against firm or party of mis-appropriation of the
Trademark. The appellant in his appeal to the Commission has stated that the
information furnished by the respondent is incomplete and that action may be taken
against the CPIO under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
3. It is seen from the above that the Public Authority has already furnished the point-
wise information as sought by the appellant. Nothing has been stated about the
information was incomplete or misleading. The appeal, therefore, does not merit
consideration and, therefore, rejected.
Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.
Sd/-
(Padma Balasubramanian)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy :
(Prem Singh Sagar)
Under Secretary & Assistant Registrar
Address of parties :
1. Mr. D.J. Awatrmani, CPIO, Trade Marks Registry, Baudhik Sampada Bhawan,
Near Antop Hill, Head Post Office, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400037
2. Mr. N.R. Seth, Appellate Authority, Trade Marks Registry, O/o Controller General
of Patent, Design & Trademarks, Baudhik Sampada Bhawan, Near Antop Hill,
Head Post Office, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai-400037
3. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, R.M.V. H/W & Electricals, 13/303, Mamu Bhanja
Street, Aligarh-202001
2