YATIN KHODABHAI DESAI (LEUVA PATEL)versusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS,DESIGNS AND TRADE MARK(CGPDTM)
- Disposal
- 47-DISPOSAL IN ANY OTHER MODE FH
- Bench
- HEMANT M PRACHCHHAK
Holding
The Court ordered the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad, to decide the petitioner’s trademark application within three months of the receipt of the order.
Summary
The petitioner, appearing in person, filed a writ petition under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and Section 226 of the Constitution, seeking speedy disposal of his trademark application No. 6161550 (Class 14) pending before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad. He relied on a Rajasthan High Court order in Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks directing prompt handling of pending applications. The respondents argued that the matter should be decided within a time‑frame set by the court. The High Court examined the delay, found it unreasonable, and directed the Assistant Registrar to decide the application within three months of the order. The petition was thereafter disposed, with the rule made absolute and service permitted.
Issues considered
- The delay in deciding the petitioner’s trademark application violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21.
- Whether the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks should be compelled to fix a show‑cause hearing and decide the application within a specific period.
- Whether the directions of the Rajasthan High Court in Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks are binding on the respondent.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
C/SCA/2548/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2548 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
YATIN KHODABHAI DESAI (LEUVA PATEL)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CONTROLLER GENERAL OF
PATENTS,DESIGNS AND TRADE MARK(CGPDTM) & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 30/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Vyoma K. Jhaveri,
learned Standing Counsel waives service of notice of rule
for and on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2. Present petition is filed by the petitioner, who appears
as party-in-person under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 226
of the Constitution of India r/w the provisions under
Trade Mark Act,1999 seeking below mentioned relief:-
Page 1 of 4
C/SCA/2548/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
“25(A). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the Respondent no. 2-Asst. Registrar of Trade
Marks, Ahmedabad - to immediately fix a date for Show
Cause Hearing and decide the Petitioner's Trade Mark
Application No. 6161550 (Class 14 Series) within a
period of four weeks from the date of this order;
[A copy of Trademark Application dated 24-10-2023 is
annexed at Annexure - "A", Pg. no. 16 to 17]
25(B). Further direct the Respondents to strictly comply
with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High
Court in Nirmala Kabra v. Registrar of Trade Marks
regarding speedy disposal of pending trademark
applications;
[A copy of order dated 07-08-2025 is annexed at
Annexure - "F", Pg. no. 25 to 30]
25(C). Declare that the prolonged delay in listing and
disposal of the Petitioner's trademark application is
arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14,
19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India;
25(D). Award costs and/or appropriate compensation to
the Petitioner for the loss, hardship, and delay suffered
due to inaction of the Respondents;
25(Ε). Pass any other and further orders as may be
deemed just, proper, and equitable in the interest of
justice.
Interim Prayer
26. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this
petition, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent
No. 2 to list the Petitioner's application for Show Cause
Hearing within 15 days and file a status report before
this Hon'ble Court.”
3. Heard Mr. Yatin Khodabhai Desai who appears as
party-in-person, and Ms. Jhaveri, learned Standing
Page 2 of 4
C/SCA/2548/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
Counsel for the respondents.
4. Today, the petitioner-party-in-person submits before
the Court that the application of the petitioner bearing
Trade Mark Application No.6161550 (Class 14 Series) is
pending before respondent No.2. He urges before the
Court to direct the respondent No.2 to decide the said
application pending before respondent No.2 within some
reasonable time period. He relied upon the directions
issued by the Rajasthan High Court in case of Nirmala
Kabra vs. Registrar of Trade Marks and submits that the
application filed by him may be decided by respondent
No.2, as early as possible.
5. On the other hand, Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits
that if the application of the petitioner-party-in-person
bearing Trade Mark Application No.6161550 (Class 14
Series) is pending before respondent No.2, then the same
shall be decided, as per time period fixed by this Court.
6. I have perused the record of the petition. It appears
from the record that the application of the petitioner-
party-in-person bearing Trade Mark Application
No.6161550 (Class 14 Series) pending before respondent
No.2 is not decided till today and it is pending before
respondent No.2 since long.
Page 3 of 4
C/SCA/2548/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2026
7. In view of the above, the respondent No.2 is hereby
directed to decide the application of the petitioner
bearing Trade Mark Application No.6161550 (Class 14
Series) within period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of present order, in accordance with law.
8. With the above observations present petition stands
disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent. Direct service is permitted.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SURESHKUMAR MOTIBHAI SOLANKI(HC00208), PRINCIPAL PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 01/05/2026 17:48:37
Page 4 of 4
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.