In a telephonic conversation with Sumathi earlier this evening, Dr. Kardam informed her that he had no intention of reviewing his earlier order rejecting her appeal against the order of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) at the G.I. Registry, who had priced the information which we had requested for at Rs. 10 per page. Given that Dr. Kardam is not going to review his patently wrong order, it now follows that no information pertaining to patent, trademark and G.I. files will be provided under the R.T.I. Act. (image from here)
Applicants will now instead have to apply under the Patent Rules, Trademark Rules & the G.I. rules for a copy of any files pertaining to registered or applied for patents, trademarks and G.I.s As those of you practicing before the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) are aware, applying under these normal rules means that it is going to be more expensive and more time consuming to get information. Unlike the RTI Act, these rules neither have fixed time limits nor a robust implementation mechanism like the RTI Act, 2005. All of this means that applicants will be left to the whims and fancies of the staff at IPO, thereby once again reversing the power equation in favour of the bureaucrats at the IPO.
What I find most absurd is the manner in which we have found ourselves in this position. Sumathi had originally filed the RTI application seeking for the G.I. files pertaining to Darjeeling Tea. The CPIO of the G.I. Registry agrees to provide the information under the RTI Act but charges Rs. 10 per page. When we inform him that the Central Govt. rules specify only Rs. 2 per page he declines to agrees with us. We file an appeal to Kardam and at the stage of appeal he rules that the RTI Act does not even apply!!! At the stage of appeal!!! This is when he himself had held two months ago that the RTI Act was applicable to such requests.
What I find absolutely surprising in this entire fiasco is that for the last seven years the CPIOs at the IPO have never taken up this objection. Just last year when Shamnad filed RTIs seeking Form 27s of pharma companies, they gave him all the necessary information under the RTI Act, 2005. Why then did Dr. Kardam decide to rule against this accepted position?
In any case the IPO must understand that every reaction spawns an equal and opposite reaction. The rejection of the RTI Act, 2005 by the IPO will reflect extremely negatively on the IPO and its staff, not only in India but at international forums. Transparency is the buzzword in the world of governance today and any move to kill it will attract only criticism.
Why dont you go on second appeal before CIC?
We have seen that officials of IPO act strange. I do not understand how could Mr. Kardam give a telephone call to inform Sumathi that he is not going to review his order?
And strange enough that Sumathi is sitting idle and considering her application to have been rejected just on telephone? I think when the period of thirty days expire after the filing of the review application, the second appeal must be filed before CIC, mentioning about the said telephonic refusal, if no written refusal is conveyed to her.
I think there is a judgment of CIC stating that it is for the applicant to choose the forum to require the copies of the papers. If one wants the certified copies of the documents then of course one has to resort to the Trade Mark Rule 2002, Patent Rules 1972 and so on. But if one wants just the copies of the documents, one can ask for the same by paying just Rs2/- per page. It cannot be refused. There is difference between the copies of the documents and certified copies of the documents. This must better be understood by the IPO Officials.
Please stop open blackmailing. Its unprofessional on behalf of SPICYIP to post threatening articles. The issue is a procedural matter and let court decide the case. Dont act yourself as law imposers.
@ Anon (10:09 AM): Technically there is no provision under the RTI Act for a ‘review’. Since the order was blatantly wrong, we thought we should ask Kardam to review his own order before taking it to the CIC. Other CPIO’s have corrected their mistakes when pointed out to them so we thought even Kardam would be open to rectifying his obvious errors.
Since we did not get a reply from him, Sumathi called him and asked him for his reply.
Prashant
mr. Prasanth reddi
as an advocate Ms. Sumathi may approach the supreme court directly that there is a violation of fundamental right. I have already suggested in your earlier post to approach the higher forum instead of review. If you got a favourable orders, it will be useful to downtrodden people to get photocopy
Hi Prashant,
I believe your views are based on a fundamentally wrong premise. The State/organs of the State ought to be entitled to revenue, even if the same is considered to be unreasonable or excessive in the view of the person availing it.
Your main problem is that these documents cannot be accessed at a lower cost now, as you have done in the past. But this has been clarified in all the orders you have yourself linked- when there is a specific law/procedure in place, you cannot circumvent that using the RTI Act. If you have a problem with how much the Patent Office charges for a certified copy, then raise that as an issue. Your use of the RTI as a cheaper way to get documents may only hamper the genuine efforts of some to get documents that would otherwise be unavailable.
And quite honestly, the last paragraph of your post criticising the IPO for its lack of transparency is uncalled for- it’s not like they denied giving you the documents if you asked for certified copies of it, or did an inspection of the records (after publication under Section 11A). Critical much?
Hi Kruttika,
The state is only entitled to revenue to recoup its costs – it cannot rip off citizens. If it costs Rs. 2 to photocopy under the RTI Act, why should it cost Rs. 10 to photocopy under the G.I. Rules? If it is a question of postal charges etc., the RTI Rules permit govt. offices to bill the applicant for the same.
The relevant question therefore is why the 5 fold difference between the RTI Act and the G.I. Rules?
As for the orders that I have linked to, you have possibly missed the order where Kardam himself has agreed that Shailesh Gandhi’s order was applicable to the IPO. The subsequent order that Kardam has cited from the CIC is not applicable because that was with specific regard to certified copies and not photocopies.
As for my last paragraph it was absolutely necessary. There is a reason that people like Kardam are resisting the application of the RTI Act with such vigour – it is because it makes them accountable in a manner which this country has never witnessed before.
If you apply under the normal rules, the IPO takes it own sweet time. Unless of course you have access to middle men in the IPO to grease palms.
Under the RTI Act if they deny information you can sue them before the CIC.
The simple fact of the matter is that the RTI Act cut down ‘revenues’ for the black pockets and thus the resistance.
Prashant
And that is exactly my point (even in my previous comment).
If you have a problem with how much the Patent Office charges for a certified copy, then raise that as an issue.
As for Kardam’s previous order, may be someone pointed out to him it was wrong under the current scheme of the GI/Patent Act which provides for certified copies, and therefore he has given a new order. Nothing extraordinary. Courts/Judges change their minds all the time (eg. Justice Vikramaditya Sen- Ford v. CR Borman and IPRS v. Sanjay Dalia).
I do not know about the GI Registry but in my experience as a patent attorney practicing before the Patent Office for a number of years, the patent Office charges Rs. 4/- per page for a copy of a document – even if you ask them to email it to you. This is a practice and is being followed for years now. Of course getting a certified copy is an altogether different matter. My question is why did you go through RTI and not the normal route of File inspection? Or were you suspicious that they would hide the very document that you were asking for. Just curious!
Hi Kruttika,
I don’t understand your point. It is not just about the cost.
My point is that transparency is linked to accountability. Under the normal rules if you apply for information and they do not get give you the information you have no recourse except greasing palms or approaching them through a ‘big’ law firm which will grease their palms.
Under the RTI Act, if the IPO does not give you information they get fined by the CIC. Hence when the IPO wiggles out of the RTI Act they escape accountability and transparency. My post was not only about this case but also the future ramifications at the IPO.
As for Kardam changing his mind, you miss the point once again. The order that he cites is for ‘certified copies’ and not ordinary photocopies. It is not even like he cited a relevant decision. We pointed this out to him in the review.
Further, he had no business changing his mind at the appellate stage. The CPIO in question did not raise the contention that the RTI Act does not apply. He agreed that the RTI Act did apply but decided to charge us Rs. 10 per photocopy. Our appeal was solely on the point of photocopying charges and as you may know an appellate authority cannot go beyond the scope of the appeal.
Just because the judges of the Delhi High Court go beyond the scope of the appeal does not make it right.
Prashant
Hi Anon (1:48 PM),
Well the reason we applied under the RTI Act was the cost factor – we are asking for information not only pertaining to Darjeeling but also other G.I.s like Basmati.
Under the G.I. Rules, the Registry gave us a bill of almost Rs. 24,000. I’m not sure of the exact figure but it was in the neighbourhood of that amount.
Further we will also have to incur costs to scan the documents and put it up on the blog. As you know access to the blog is for free and we have very limited resources. Therefore cost is a big factor in our calculations. The cost under the RTI Act would have come to just around Rs. 5000 approx which we could afford.
Ideally the G.I. Registry should be hosting all of this information on its website like the Patent Office. Unfortunately, they have not yet done that.
Prashant
Dear Mr Prashant
I think for SpicyIP the officials of IPO have become easy prey. Do you have courage to write against CIC who have been changing their stand in their decision.If someone is following CIC decision why can’t you challenge the CIC Decion rather than critising the IPO officials
Hi Prashant,
There are adequate grounds here to file a case against the CIC: Because different commissioners have given different opinions/orders, there is confusion regarding the same. In the case of the patent office, the Controllers can rely on any one of these (latest) orders. I am seeing the same issue in Land registry offices where RTI orders are followed selectively.
It seems that a writ against the CIC (different orders) should be filed so that at least there is uniformity in terms of the price of providing information.
Hi Rajiv,
We are attempting something on those lines. I’ll email you the updates.
Prashant