DR. M. K. SHARMA. J. ( 1 ) BY this common order I propose to dispose of the aforesaid petitions in whichthe petitioners have challenged similar orders passed by the Registrar of Trademarks and as similar and common issues arise for consideration. ( 2 ) THE petitioners herein have challenged the orders passed on 15. 5. 1996 by theregistrar of Trade Marks disposing off the interlocutory petitions filed by the opponents. ( 3 ) BRIEF facts leading to filing of the aforesaid petitions are that Shri Hans Rajthukral, Shri Raj Kumar Thukral and Shri Swaran Thukral trading as Ashoka Dressesapplied for registration of trade mark lion with device of head of lion adjacent to thefirst alphabet l of the word Lion, in respect of ready-made garments included inclass-25. The aforesaid application was advertised before acceptance in Trademark Journal No. 1092 dated 1. 12. 1994. Subsequently, thirteen opponents filed theirnotice of opposition opposing therein the registration of trade mark advertised in thetrade Mark Journal as aforesaid. During the pendency of the aforesaid notice ofopposition opposing the registration the respondents herein filed interlocutoryapplications contending inter alia that the aforesaid advertisement in trade markjournal is a mis-representation and has created confusion and deception in themarket and the same is meant for deceiving the public by way of misusing the sameby the petitioners. The aforesaid applications were taken up for consideration by theregistrar of Trade Marks and were disposed of by the impugned orders which arethe subject matter of challenge in the present petitions. ( 4 ) IT is an admitted position of the parties that the advertisement of the impugnedapplication in Trade Mark Journal No. 1092 was a defective advertisement for havingshown it to be associated with the trade mark No. 425298 under the American Trademark lion and by associating the same with the instant application for registrationof the mark applied for. The petitioners cannot deny the fact that the association oftrade Mark No. 425298 has been wrongly indicated in the advertisement in questionpublished in the Journal, for the aforesaid trade mark No. 425298 is still in the nameof an American Company. It is also an admitted position that the aforesaid applicationfiled by the petitioners has been advertised before acceptance. The Registrar oftrade Marks under the impugned order negatived the contention of the petitionersthat the present matter relating to mis-representation in the advertisement could notbe raised at an interlocutory stage. It is also an admitted position that the aforesaid applicationfiled by the petitioners has been advertised before acceptance. The Registrar oftrade Marks under the impugned order negatived the contention of the petitionersthat the present matter relating to mis-representation in the advertisement could notbe raised at an interlocutory stage. The plea that the Registrar had no power tocancel an advertisement because no such power had been enlisted under Section97ofthe Act, to cancel the aforesaid advertisement because of mis-representationand also pass a consequential order placing the status of the application filed by thepetitioner for registration at the stage of Rule 39 i. e. the stage before acceptance oftrade mark was also rejected. It was held that the applications filed by the respondentsget automatically abated and closed. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioners submitted that the Registrar of Trade Marks actedillegally and without jurisdiction in putting the applications filed by the petitioners tothe stage of Rule 39 of the Rules. He also submitted that even in case there wassome mis-representation in the advertisement the Registrar should have cancelledthe advertisement and thereafter should have ordered for re-advertisement in correctform inasmuch as issuance of an incorrect advertisement was the act of the Registryof the Trade Marks and the petitioners were in no way concerned with the aforesaidmis-representation. He further submitted that for the mistake of Courts and itsofficers the litigants should not be allowed to suffer and since an incorrectadvertisement was published due to the mistake of the officials of the Trade Markregistry the Registrar should have ordered for cancellation of the advertisement andthereafter should have ordered for re-advertisement in accordance with law withoutputting back the clock to the stage of Rule 39 of the Trade and Merchandise Marksrules. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of thesupreme Court in Jang Singh Vs. Brij Lal and Others reported in (65)1963 PLRpage 884. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent however, took up a preliminaryobjection contending inter alia that the present petition is not maintainable. Hesubmitted that by the impugned order no right of the petitioners is decided andtherefore, no appeal as against the said order is maintainable and therefore, thepresent petitions filed by petitioners under Section 109 (2) of the Trade andmerchandise Marks Act should be dismissed as not maintainable. Hesubmitted that by the impugned order no right of the petitioners is decided andtherefore, no appeal as against the said order is maintainable and therefore, thepresent petitions filed by petitioners under Section 109 (2) of the Trade andmerchandise Marks Act should be dismissed as not maintainable. He also submittedthat since the application filed by the petitioners was advertised before acceptance,therefore, the Registrar of Trade Marks acted legally and within his jurisdiction indirecting that the status of the application filed by the petitioner falls at the stage ofrule 39 i. e. the stage before acceptance of trade mark upon cancellation of theadvertisement. In support of his aforesaid submission he relied upon the decision ofthis court in M/s. Rattan and Co. Vs. P. Narayanan; reported in AIR 1977 Delhi page93. He also drew my attention to the various provisions of the Trade and Merchandisemarks Act particularly to the provisions of Sections 18. 19 and 20 of the Trade andmerchandise Marks Act read with Rules 39 to 47 of the Trade and Merchandisemarks Rubles. ( 7 ) IN the light of the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel appearing for theparties I propose to dispose of the issues raised before me. ( 8 ) THE power to file an appeal is provided for under Section 109 of the Trade andmerchandise Marks Act. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that an appeal shall lie tothe High Court within the prescribed period from any order or the decision of theregistrar under this Act or the Rules made thereunder. In Rattan and Co. (supra) thiscourt had an occasion to deal with a similar objection. A Single Bench of this courtdealt with the provisions of Section 109 of the said Act and in that context held that theobject of the said provision is to give a right of appeal to a party aggrieved by someorder which affects his rights or liability inasmuch as the words "from any order ordecision of the Registrar under this Act" though very wide do not include interlocutoryorders which are merely procedural or processual and do not affect the rights andliabilities of the parties. In the present case the Registrar having found that theadvertisement was defective and cancelled the same consequent to which theapplication of the petitioner was set sown to the stage of Rule 39 i. e. prior to thestage of acceptance. In the present case the Registrar having found that theadvertisement was defective and cancelled the same consequent to which theapplication of the petitioner was set sown to the stage of Rule 39 i. e. prior to thestage of acceptance. Counsel for the petitioners however, submitted that by revertingback the petitioners to a stage of original position the rights and liabilities of thepetitioners have been determined by the Registrar and therefore, the appeal iscompetent. It is not in dispute that in the advertisement there was mis-representationand therefore, the said advertisement had to be cancelled inasmuch as anadvertisement of a trade mark is the notice to the world at large which is intended toprovide complete information in respect of the mark which has been applied forregistration and is likely to proceed for registration. A defective advertisement couldcreate confusion and uncertainties in the mind of the general public and therefore,such an advertisement was not a fair representation to the public at large. Therefore,no fault could be found with the action of the Registrar in cancelling the advertisement,for it was necessary for him to put the record straight and get an advertisement donelegally and in the appropriate form. Having so proceeded in accordance with law heordered for putting the application to the stage of Rule 39 i. e. prior to the stage ofacceptance. Such an action is more in the nature of procedural, for the provisions ofrules 37 to 47 of the Rules provide for procedure and the mode and manner in whichan application for registration is to be dealt with by the Registrar. In my consideredopinion, what the Registrar has done is a procedural and processual aspect and thesame did not at all affect the rights and liabilities of the parties in any manner. I,therefore, hold that the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks putting theapplications to the stage of Rule 39 is not appealable under Section 109 (2) of the Actand accordingly, I uphold the preliminary objection. However, since the parties heretoargued at length on the merits of the dispute also I propose to deal with the saidaspect also. I,therefore, hold that the order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks putting theapplications to the stage of Rule 39 is not appealable under Section 109 (2) of the Actand accordingly, I uphold the preliminary objection. However, since the parties heretoargued at length on the merits of the dispute also I propose to deal with the saidaspect also. ( 9 ) SECTION 18 deals with the procedure for registration, for it provides that anyperson claiming to be the proprietor of a trade mark used or proposed to be used byhim, who is desirous of registering it, shall apply in writing to the Registrar in theprescribed manner for the registration of his trade mark. Sub-section (4) of Section18 provides thai the Registrar may refuse the application or may accept it absolutelyor subject to such amendments, modifications, conditions or limitations, if any, as hemay think fit. There is no absolute right under the Act enabling an applicant to getregistration of his trade mark. Section 19 of the Act on the other hand empowers theregistrar to withdraw even the acceptance provided the same is done prior to itsregistration and aiso, provided he is satisfied that the application has been acceptedin error or that in the circumstances of the case the trade mark should not beregistered or should be registered subject to the conditions or limitations. Section 20on the other hand provides that an advertisement of an application can be madeeither before acceptance or after acceptance as decided by the Registrar. Theregistrar may however, cause an application to be advertised before acceptancewhen the condition as set out under proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 20 issatisfied. ( 10 ) RULE 39 relates to objection to acceptance and hearing thereto. It is providedthat if on consideration of the application of any evidence of use or of distinctivenessor of any other matter which the applicant may or may be required to furnish, theregistrar has any objection to the acceptance of the application or proposes toaccept it subject to such conditions, limitations, amendments etc. The Registrar shallcommunicate such objection or proposal in writing to the applicant. Rule 44 alsoprovides that even after acceptance of an application but before registration of thetrade mark the Registrar has any objection to the acceptance of the application, theregistrar is empowered to communicate such objection in writing to the applicant. Rule 46 prescribes that mode and manner of advertisement of an application. Rule 44 alsoprovides that even after acceptance of an application but before registration of thetrade mark the Registrar has any objection to the acceptance of the application, theregistrar is empowered to communicate such objection in writing to the applicant. Rule 46 prescribes that mode and manner of advertisement of an application. Theaforesaid provisions therefore, indicate that before registering a trade mark on thebasis of an application an advertisement is to be done of the said trade mark in thetrade Mark Journal bringing to the notice of the general public that a registration issought for the trade mark in question. Such advertisement could be at two differentstages - (1) before acceptance of the application: or (2) after acceptance of theapplication but before registration. In the instant case the Registrar had ordered foradvertisement of the trade mark in the Trade Mark Journal before acceptance. Thevery purpose of an advertisement in the Trade Mark Journal is to provide for completeinformation in respect of the trade mark advertised so that the public at large mayreceive a clear information in respect of the trade mark advertised. If however, anadvertisement gives incomplete information in respect of the particulars of the trademark advertised or gives an incorrect information regarding any material particular aprospective opponent is deprived of the opportunity of getting full information regardingthe trade mark and also is deprived of the opportunity of filing an effective opposition. Therefore, an incorrect advertisement which amounted to mis-representation isrequired to be cancelled which was done in the instant case by the Registrar of Trademarks for giving incorrect informations and having misrepresented the material facts. While cancelling the aforesaid advertisement the Registrar was satisfied that thestatus of the application should be put at the stage of Rule 39 i. e. the stage beforeacceptance of trade mark. In my considered opinion the said order can not be said tohave been passed illegally or without jurisdiction. ( 11 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner however, sought to submit that instead of putting thecase of the petitioner at the stage of Rule 39 the Registrar should have ordered foronly re-advertisement and then should have proceeded from that stage. I, however,cannot accept the aforesaid contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners,for with the cancellation of the advertisement before acceptance, the application isnecessarily to be put to the stage of Rule 39 which is the stage prior to the acceptance. I, however,cannot accept the aforesaid contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners,for with the cancellation of the advertisement before acceptance, the application isnecessarily to be put to the stage of Rule 39 which is the stage prior to the acceptance. This is the stage when upon hearing the petitioners the Registrar shall take adecision as to whether the application shall be advertised in the Trade Mark Journaleither as accepted or before acceptance. In my considered opinion no right of thepetitioner is affected and/or violated, for the application of the petitioners is yet to beaccepted and therefore, as a natural consequence the Registrar has to place thepetition at the stage of Rule 39 i. e. the stage before acceptance of trade mark. Theregistrar has thought it fit to give an opportunity of hearing to the applicant/petitionersso as to ascertain to show cause whether the application is to be accepted forregistration or not. ( 12 ) IN view of the above discussion I find no reason to interfere with the impugnedorder. There is no infirmity in the said order. The petitions have no merit and aredismissed.