Central Information Commission
7 cases · page 1 of 1
Hamrish Kumar Rajakumar v.Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)
The appellant filed an RTI seeking comprehensive information from ICMR regarding the legal framework, ownership, and formalities associated with protecting a Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) tool developed by undergraduate students. The Commission found that the PIO had disclosed available public domain information, but directed ICMR to provide the Appellant with its detailed Intellectual Property Policy for complete transparency.
Baskar v.CPIO, Ministry of Commerce & Industry, DPIIT, RTI Cell
The appellant filed an appeal seeking detailed information about objections and classification of their design patent application (367649-001) under the Designs Act, 2000. The CPIO denied the request, arguing that the procedural aspects of design examination are governed by the Designs Act and Rules, not the RTI Act. The Commission upheld this stance, citing precedents on the limited scope of public information.
Kamal Kishore Arora v.Central Public Information Officer, Trade Marks Registry
The appellant filed an RTI application seeking detailed particulars of trade mark registration applications that were unlawfully accepted, withdrawn, and the subsequent disciplinary action taken against concerned Examiners. The CPIO initially denied providing certain information citing exemptions under the RTI Act. The Commission found the CPIO's reply misleading regarding complaints received by the organization and directed a revised response.
Sunil Kishore Ahya v.Election Commission of India
The appellant sought information regarding the design and engineering of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs). The respondents argued that disclosing this technical information, which falls under patent rights, could enable the manufacturing of spurious machines and threaten the democratic process. The Commission agreed with the respondents' stance.
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran v.Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)
Ms. Sumathi Chandrashekaran filed appeals against APEDA for not providing satisfactory information regarding the file pertaining to the Geographical Indication (GI) registration of Basmati rice, including global protection efforts. The Commission ultimately ruled that APEDA had no disclosure obligation because the requested information involved commercially sensitive and subjudice matters.
Shri Mohan Vidhani v.Registrar of Trade Marks, New Delhi
Mohan Vidhani filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission seeking details regarding the status of a registered Trademark (TM No. 455982) during its restoration/renewal process. The CPIO denied the request, stating the queries were beyond the scope of the RTI Act as they asked how decisions were reached. The CIC upheld this decision.
Ms. Sakshi Mathur v.Dr. Nand Kumar & Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare (AIIMS)
Ms. Sakshi Mathur filed an appeal seeking certified copies of question booklets, OMR answer sheets, answer keys, and marks/rank from the AIIMS-MBBS Entrance Examination, 2011. The respondents claimed these materials were intellectual property exempt under Section 8(1)(d) and that a fiduciary relationship existed under Section 9 of the RTI Act. The Commission rejected these claims, ruling that the information was not exempted and directing the PIO to provide the requested copies.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.