Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Central Information Commission
Mr.Neel Kama Gupta vs Ministry Of Commerce And Industry on 16 August, 2012

Central Information Commission

Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,  Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066

Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001949

Dated: 16.08.2012

Name of Appellant : Shri Neel Kamal Gupta

Name of Respondent : Trade Marks Registry Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Date of Hearing : 24.07.2012

ORDER

Shri Neel Kamal Gupta, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 1.4.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Trade Marks Registry, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, New Delhi for not providing information in reply to his RTI-application dated 10.1.2011. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Ms. Prem Lata, Assistant Registrar.

2. This matter was earlier heard by the Commission on 23.4.2012. During the hearing the respondent CPIO submitted that the information as sought for by the appellant was related to his grievance regarding renewal of his Trade Mark application No. 840203/Class-9 and requested the appellant to submit a copy of TM-12 application enabling her to do the needful. The appellant stated before the Commission that he would send a letter to the Commission with the request to withdraw his instant appeal. The appellant however failed to do so. Hence the matter was rescheduled for hearing on 24.7.2012. 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001949

3. The appellant through his RTI application dated 10.1.2011 sought reasons why the Renewal Certificate had not been issued in respect of TM-12 which was filed in respect of Registered Trade Mark No. 840203/Class 9 on 9.2.2009.

4. After failing to get any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal before the FAA on 7.3.2011. The FAA vide his order No. POD/RTI/ Appeal/13/ 2011/21 dated 16.3.2011 informed the appellant that the CPIO could not provide the information in prescribed time due to some administrative reasons. However, the CPIO had been directed to provide the necessary information very shortly in this regard.

5. During the hearing the respondent CPIO submits that the CPIO vide her letter No. PL/RTI/12 dated 24.7.2012 has informed the appellant as follows: "As per your personal talk with undersigned and your SMS in this registry/copy of TM-12 was sent by you to redress your grievances of non-issuance of renewal certificate. Copy of your said request is enclosed. Since the information sought was in fact redressal of the grievances the same had been redressed and renewal has been effected in the records of the Registry."

6. The Commission is of the view that the information by the appellant pertained to his grievances for non-issuance of renewal certificate. The RTI Act is not the forum for grievance redressal. However, the respondent have renewed Trade Mark No. 840204/Class-9.

The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.

(Sushma Singh)

Information Commissioner

3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2011/001949

Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma)

OSD & Deputy Registrar

Address of the parties:

Shri Neel Kamal Gupta, Advocate,

B.K. 27 (West), Shalimar Bagh,

Delhi-110088.

The CPIO,

Trade Marks Registry,

Ministry of Commerce & Industry,

Intellectual Property Office,

Plot No. 32, Sector-14, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.

The First Appellate Authority,

Trade Marks Registry,

Ministry of Commerce & Industry,

Intellectual Property Office,

Plot No. 32, Sector-14, Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.