Dismissed

Braj Mohan Rathore v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Jun 2021WRIC/13394/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition filed by Braj Mohan Rathore sought a stay on an intimation letter concerning a trademark application. The High Court held the communication was merely a proposal to withdraw acceptance and a proposed notice, not an actual order. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as misconceived and premature.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no stay or interim mandate issued.

Braj Mohan Rathore Vs Union of India and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13394 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Braj Mohan Rathore Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel through video conferencing and perused the record.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer for following reliefs:-

¶7

" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hob'ble Court may kindly be pleased to stay the effect and operation of order dated 13.5.2021 passed by respondent No.3, The Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and the notice dated 28.05.2021 issued by respondent no.2, The Registrar of Trade Mark, Delhi.

¶8

Further, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased issue ad-interim Mandamus commanding the respondents not to pass any order or notice during the pendency of the instant writ petition, else the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

¶9

And/or to pass such other and further order as the Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts & circumstances of the case. "

¶10

We have perused the impugned order which is, in fact, not an order but an intimation for a proposed notice. The aforesaid letter dated 13.5.2021 which has been alleged in the writ petition as an order, is not an order.

¶11

The aforesaid letter itself states that "The Registrar therefore proposes to withdraw the acceptance in pursuance of Section 19 of the Act read with Rule 38 of Trade Mark Rules, 2017 and hearing of the application has been appointed. A fresh hearing notice shall be issued in due course".

¶12

In view of the above, the writ petition is misconceived and premature.

¶13

For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 29.6.2021 Vandana

¶15

Digitally signed by Justice Surya Digitally signed by Justice Gautam Prakash Kesarwani Chowdhary Date: 2021.07.01 10:41:23 IST Date: 2021.07.01 10:42:49 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad

Braj Mohan Rathore v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Braj Mohan Rathore v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gabbar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt.Anamika Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shobha Ram Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Dharambeer Singh Tyagi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others