A restaurant services proprietor filed a writ over non-examination of its trademark application in Class 43. The court held Rule 34 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 provides an efficacious alternate remedy and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~47
Through: Mr. Pranav Gupta, Mr. Sajan Shankar Prasad & Mr. Kuldeep Rana, Advocates.
versus REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Advocate for Respondent No. 1
Mr. Gaurav Barathi, SPC (through VC) Ms. Priya Singh, GP for UoI (through VC) for UOI, Respondent No. 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
% 07.08.2025 CM 204/2025 ( Condonation of delay in re-filing )
W.P.(C)-IPD 48/2025
registration of the Device Mark (“ Subject Mark ”) in Class 43.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:12:22
has been running the business of providing restaurant and catering services and other allied and cognate services under the name Gupta Chaat Corner bearing the Subject Mark. The Petitioner filed the Subject Application before the Respondent No. 1 for registration of the Subject Mark in Class 43 on 24.10.2024 claiming user since 03.07.2006 in respect of services namely Restaurant Services, Fast Food Centre, Catering Services and other allied and cognate services under Class 43. However, until the filing of the present Writ Petition the Subject Application has not been examined and the Trade Mark Application Queue List expects the Subject Application to be examined in 188 working days. The Respondent No. 1 has, accordingly, failed to examine the Subject Application in accordance with Rule 33 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (“ Rules ”).
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:12:22
exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the Court must not easily assume that the remedy provided in the Act is inadequate or not efficacious.
“9. Where, however, the Court, on a studied analysis of the facts, feels that the situation before it is one in which the litigant is entitled to seek a remedy for which the legislature has provided no adequate or efficacious provision, relief can unquestionably be granted under Article 226. The Court must not, however, presume, too easily, that the reliefs provided by statute are inadequate or not efficacious. The litigant who so asserts must prove the assertion to the hilt. Mere delay or expense, were the litigant to avail the statutorily provided remedy, cannot constitute justifiable ground for the Court to provide succour under Article 226. Else, Article 226 would cease to confer extraordinary, but would be conferring, instead, alternative, jurisdiction on the Court.”
TEJAS KARIA, J
AUGUST 7, 2025 / „ak‟
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/08/2025 at 13:12:22
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition can be entertained for delay in examination of a trade mark application when an expedited processing remedy exists under Rule 34.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kaira District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. v. Registrar of TrademarksRelied on¶8
2023 SCC OnLine Del 1730 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rinku Gupta Proprietor of Gupta Chat Corner
Registrar of Trademarks
Union of India
Tejas Karia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
