{"id":11557,"date":"2025-11-13T07:19:08","date_gmt":"2025-11-13T07:19:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11557"},"modified":"2025-11-13T07:27:05","modified_gmt":"2025-11-13T07:27:05","slug":"bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/","title":{"rendered":"Bar on Intra-Court Appeals in IPD Cases"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Glorious Investment Limited<\/strong> had filed an application before the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks for registration of the trademark \u201cDUNLOP\u201d under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Dunlop International Limited opposed this application, claiming prior rights and goodwill in the mark. Despite the objection, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated July 4, 2024, allowed Glorious Investment Limited\u2019s application and permitted registration of the mark \u201cDUNLOP.\u201d<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Central_Issue\" >Central Issue<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Arguments_on_Behalf_of_Respondent_No_1_Dunlop_International_Limited\" >Arguments on Behalf of Respondent No. 1 (Dunlop International Limited)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Arguments_on_Behalf_of_Respondent_No_2_Deputy_Registrar_of_Trademarks\" >Arguments on Behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Registrar of Trademarks)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Arguments_on_Behalf_of_the_Appellant_Glorious_Investment_Limited\" >Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant (Glorious Investment Limited)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Revisiting_National_Sewing_Thread_Case\" >Revisiting National Sewing Thread Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Impact_of_Section_100A_CPC\" >Impact of Section 100A CPC<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Is_the_Registrar_of_Trademarks_a_%E2%80%9CCivil_Court%E2%80%9D\" >Is the Registrar of Trademarks a \u201cCivil Court\u201d?<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Legislative_Intent\" >Legislative Intent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Distinguishing_Delhi_High_Court_Judgments\" >Distinguishing Delhi High Court Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Calcutta_High_Court_Precedent\" >Calcutta High Court Precedent<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Law_Settled\" >Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bar-on-intra-court-appeals-in-ipd-cases\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>Dunlop International Limited, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Single Judge of the Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPD) of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Single Judge, by an order dated June 11, 2025, set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar and remanded the matter for reconsideration after granting both parties a fresh opportunity of hearing.<\/p>\n<p>Feeling dissatisfied, Glorious Investment Limited filed the present appeal before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, contending that such a second appeal was maintainable under the Letters Patent and the Calcutta High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2023.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The sequence of proceedings is summarised below:<\/p>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Stage<\/th>\n<th>Forum<\/th>\n<th>Provision Invoked<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>1. Trademark Application<\/td>\n<td>Deputy Registrar of Trademarks<\/td>\n<td>Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>2. First Appeal<\/td>\n<td>Single Judge, IPD \u2013 Calcutta High Court<\/td>\n<td>Section 91, Trade Marks Act<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>3. Second Appeal (Current)<\/td>\n<td>Division Bench (Commercial Appellate Division)<\/td>\n<td>Letters Patent + IPD Rules, 2023<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p>The essential procedural question before the Bench was whether an intra-court (Letters Patent) appeal would lie from an order passed by a Single Judge in an appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"central-issue\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Central_Issue\"><\/span>Central Issue<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Can a second appeal (intra-court appeal) be maintained before a Division Bench against an order passed by a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>This required interpreting the interplay between:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/li>\n<li>Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/li>\n<li>Calcutta High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2023<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"arguments-respondent1\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_on_Behalf_of_Respondent_No_1_Dunlop_International_Limited\"><\/span>Arguments on Behalf of Respondent No. 1 (Dunlop International Limited)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>The appeal amounted to a second appeal and was barred by <strong>Section 100A CPC<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Once a Single Judge exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 91, no further appeal lay.<\/li>\n<li>Relied on provisions of the Trade Marks Act (Sections 18, 20, 21, 23, 91) showing no scope for a second appeal.<\/li>\n<li>Relied on Supreme Court precedents:\n<ul>\n<li>Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 613<\/li>\n<li>P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. (2004) 11 SCC 672<\/li>\n<li>Vasanthi v. Venugopal (2017) 4 SCC 723<\/li>\n<li>Avtar Narain Behal v. Subhash Chander Behal (Delhi HC FB, ILR 2009 II Delhi 411)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li>Rule 2(o) of the IPD Rules does not permit a second appeal.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"arguments-respondent2\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_on_Behalf_of_Respondent_No_2_Deputy_Registrar_of_Trademarks\"><\/span>Arguments on Behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Deputy Registrar of Trademarks)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Relied on Section 97 of the Trade Marks Act to show that appeals lie only against original orders.<\/li>\n<li>Rules also do not provide for a further appeal.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"arguments-appellant\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_on_Behalf_of_the_Appellant_Glorious_Investment_Limited\"><\/span>Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant (Glorious Investment Limited)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Section 100A CPC applies only when the first appeal is from a \u201cCivil Court.\u201d The Registrar of Trademarks is not a Civil Court.<\/li>\n<li>Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the IPD Rules allow appeals before the Division Bench.<\/li>\n<li>Relied on Division Bench judgments:\n<ul>\n<li>Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse (2023 SCC OnLine Del 5531)<\/li>\n<li>Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v. PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2972)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"precedent-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Revisiting_National_Sewing_Thread_Case\"><\/span>Revisiting National Sewing Thread Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court examined <em>National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick &amp; Bros. Ltd.<\/em> (1953) 1 SCC 794, which held that appeals to the High Court follow the High Court\u2019s procedural framework unless specifically barred.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"effect-section100a\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Impact_of_Section_100A_CPC\"><\/span>Impact of Section 100A CPC<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Section 100A creates a statutory bar on a further appeal from a Single Judge\u2019s appellate order.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"registrar-as-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Is_the_Registrar_of_Trademarks_a_%E2%80%9CCivil_Court%E2%80%9D\"><\/span>Is the Registrar of Trademarks a \u201cCivil Court\u201d?<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court examined Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act and compared it with powers of the Company Law Board (CLB) under Section 10E of the Companies Act, which the Supreme Court held to possess \u201call the trappings of a Court.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Registrar has quasi-judicial powers equivalent to a Civil Court.<\/li>\n<li>An appeal under Section 91 is therefore a \u201cfirst appeal.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>A further appeal becomes a \u201csecond appeal,\u201d barred by Section 100A.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3 id=\"legislative-intent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legislative_Intent\"><\/span>Legislative Intent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The earlier Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 provided for a second appeal (Section 109(5)), but this was deliberately omitted in the 1999 Act, showing intent to bar second appeals.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"distinguishing-delhi-hc\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinguishing_Delhi_High_Court_Judgments\"><\/span>Distinguishing Delhi High Court Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Delhi High Court\u2019s <em>Resilient Innovations (PhonePe)<\/em> decision dealt with an original proceeding under Section 57 (Rectification), not an appellate one. Hence, Section 100A was not attracted there.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"calcutta-precedent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Calcutta_High_Court_Precedent\"><\/span>Calcutta High Court Precedent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court aligned with its earlier ruling in <em>AC of Patents &amp; Designs v. Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal<\/em> (2016 SCC OnLine Cal 10988), where a Letters Patent appeal under the Designs Act was held not maintainable.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench held:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The present appeal was <strong>not maintainable<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>Section 100A CPC bars intra-court appeals from orders of Single Judges passed in appellate jurisdiction.<\/li>\n<li><strong>TEMPAPO\u2013IPD 5 of 2025<\/strong> and <strong>GA\u2013COM 1 of 2025<\/strong> were dismissed, with no order as to costs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled\"><\/span>Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment settles that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>No intra-court appeal lies under Letters Patent or IPD Rules from a Single Judge\u2019s order under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n<li>The Registrar of Trademarks has all the trappings of a Civil Court.<\/li>\n<li>An appeal to the Single Judge is a first appeal; a further one is a second appeal and is barred.<\/li>\n<li>&lt;\/li?&gt;The decision aligns with Supreme Court precedent in <em>Kamal Kumar Dutta<\/em>, distinguishing Delhi HC\u2019s <em>Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"6\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Glorious Investment Limited Vs. Dunlop International Limited &amp; Anr.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case No.<\/th>\n<td>TEMPAPO\u2013IPD 5 of 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Date of Order<\/th>\n<td>November 4, 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td><a href=\"\/lawyers\/lawyers_home.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">High Court at Calcutta<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Coram<\/th>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Justice Arijit Banerjee and Hon\u2019ble Justice Om Narayan Rai<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Facts Glorious Investment Limited had filed an application before the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks for registration of the trademark \u201cDUNLOP\u201d under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Dunlop International Limited opposed this application, claiming prior rights and goodwill in the mark. Despite the objection, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated July 4, 2024,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-11557","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11557","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}