Of bouncing cheques and incomplete applications – A case of ‘trademark’ incompetence?

SPICY IP:

Lawyers complaining about the delays and hassles faced at the ‘Trademark Registry’ is commonplace. However in a recent role-reversal, the CGPDTM has put up two public notices complaining about the incompetence amongst lawyers who are practicing before the Trademark Registry. Image from here
In the first notice (available over here), the Trademark Registry has complained about the large number of incomplete applications that it has been receiving from applicants. Some of the regular flaws and the remedial advice from the Registry are as follows: 
(i) Several TM applicants are apparently not mentioning the actual description of goods/services in respect of which trademark is proposed to be used. Instead of being as precise as possible with regard to the goods and services with which the trademark is proposed to be used, reference is usually made to generic phrases such as “all goods/services”, “all other goods/services included in class….”, “goods/services not limited to.…….”. 
(ii) In the case of ‘User’ of the trademark, the actual date, month and the year should be given and not just the year and/or month. 
(iii) Proper translation/transliteration of the trademark should be provided in case of Non-English/Hindi characters appearing in the mark. 
(iv) The Trademark should be clearly visible. 
In the second notice (available over here), the Trademark Registry has complained that cheques submitted for fees toward expedited legal certificates and expedited certificates for ‘copyright purpose’ are bouncing and that this information is usually received from the banks only after the requests themselves have been processed by the Trademark Registry. Hereafter the Trademark Registry has decided to accept such fees only by means of Demand Drafts. The fraternity of trademark lawyers would do well to heed the advice of the Trademark Registry and hopefully aid in the more efficient functioning of the