I’m sure that by now most of our readers have heard of the absurd yet super-popular ‘kolaveri’ song which went viral across the country in a matter of a few weeks. The operational word ‘kolaveri’, a Tamil word, is supposed to mean ‘murderous rage’. For the last few weeks we’ve been receiving some ‘kolaveri’ from practitioners upset, in particular, with my style of writing. It is therefore a pleasure to receive the following piece from a practitioner, expressing his ‘kolaveri’ against the trademark office. We are publishing the piece anonymously. (Image from here)
Woes of a trademark practitioner
Not only do I extend a hand of affirmation and appreciation to SpicyIP’s previous posts about the examiner strength crisis & ‘missing file’ scenario with the Indian Trademark office, I would in addition, like to share some personal views and experiences on how the Indian Trademark System is making it cumbersome and painful for the common person to gleefully and rightfully protect their respective trademarks.
To begin with, I often find during my visits to Mumbai Patent/ Trademark Office, that the common person who first tries filing a TM himself without an agent, gets confused about what details to fill up and what amount to pay for their TM appln, because amazingly the online portal still hosts the old forms & fees (which says TM1 – Rs. 2500 & TM51- Rs. 2500 each class. Yes, the notice regarding the new rules, and the rules themselves have been published, but the information white-space is way too obvious and unidirectional in the effect. The person who came to file the mark, now also knows that the details provided in the form were not sufficient, as there has to be a mention of the trade description, about which nothing apparently is mentioned in the form or elsewhere in the website’s guiding sections. And amidst all this confusion, courtesy and comfort is a bit too much to expect, as there is no law against being discourteous. And now he knows that an agent or attorney will really be handy and probably a definite requirement. Well it means as a consultant/ agent/ attorney we must be happy, but maybe not – first in public interest and second- agents and attorneys may also not always be in sync with the authorities, barring a few of them I believe.
I would also like to share some of my personal experiences, to which I unfortunately have no documentary evidence, of any sort, and for obvious reasons.
On a couple of occasions, I was advised by the person who receives the application on the TM cash counter, that my client’s application would not pass the examination, and would be objected and thus cannot be accepted. I was taken by surprise and insisted that the applicant is ready to accept any objection that is put across by the learned examiner and would accordingly attempt to respond, and the application be accepted, as it is in proper form and due fees are being paid. The person however decided to stand his ground and also refused to show any interest in providing a written statement to that effect, because of which I of course was not left with any evidence of the happenings. I am still wondering if such an authority can be exercised.
Then there was this issue of the Proprietor Code that was verbally pronounced to be a pre-requisite to all the applications, else, we were told, again at the cash counter, that the application will not be accepted. Another statement to which I could not find a root to any section/rule/case law/ notification by relevant authority.
Yes, there has been vast improvements, and some really good people are occupying the chair at the IPO, across the hierarchy, but there are questions unanswered and issues unresolved, and some not yet realised as well, which have to be dealt with, in national interest and hope is what keeps the torch alive.
Instead of expressing kolaveri, why cant these prople use RTI and Lokpal(after it is enacted, to expose the culprits.
Making a statement of outrage is as important as filing RTIs.
Prashant
Dear Prashant,
I do have similar experience at the TM Office. The arrogance of the cashiers and clerks was to the extent of not accepting Rs. 1000 and 500 notes, which I feel has now been set right after I wrote a strongly worded email to Shri Dharam Singh, Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. It is also noticed that the cashiers are taking objections they are no entitled to and advising on the registerability of the TMs’. I feel their job is to accept the application and forward to the next desk for further processing. Only the examiners are entitled to give any objections. I feel these cashiers should be instructed by the officers to just do their job and allow other officicals to do their jobs of examination etc. Hope Mr. Dharm Veer will take cognizance of this matter and set the matter right.
I sent a cheque of nationalized bank with CBS clearing facility containing 12 digit account number from a current account. The Mumbai office refused to receive it and sent it back to me saying that the cheque should be drawn on a Mumbai Local Bank. Will Mr. Dharam Singh do anything for this
We have had a similar experience with the Mumbai Patent Office with an outstation cheque being returned. The only use of the authority’s “discretion” seems to be in turning the clock back to pre-core banking days. They could easily enable electronic payment – to facilitate accounting the website could ask for section/rule reference. The receipt reference can be mentioned in the request letter.
I would also like to share some of my personal experiences, to which I unfortunately have no documentary evidence, of any sort, and for obvious reasons.
I am willing to send you a guest post, you can contact me at [email protected]