Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks

Calcutta High Court Division Bench Holds No Further Appeal Lies Against Single Judge Order in Trademark Rectification Matters Under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury v. The Registrar of Trade Marks and Another

Decided on: 24 April 2026

Coram: Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak and Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi

Citation: TEMPAPO-IPD/2/2025

In a significant ruling on appellate remedies under trademark law, the Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Division of the Calcutta High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal as not maintainable. The Division Bench held that Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars any further appeal against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court in an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arising from a rectification order of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

Background

The appellant, Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury, had obtained registration of a label mark containing the words “Ganraj Chhappan Bhog”. Respondent No. 2 filed a rectification application seeking cancellation of the registration, which the Registrar allowed by order dated 6 August 2024. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Intellectual Property Rights Division of the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal by order dated 3 March 2025. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Division Bench challenging the Single Judge’s order.

Issue and Contentions

The core issue before the Division Bench was the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. Respondent No. 2 raised a preliminary objection, contending that no further appeal lies in view of Section 100A CPC, which prohibits intra-court appeals from a judgment or decree passed by a Single Judge in an appeal from an original or appellate order. The respondent relied on various Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 613 and a coordinate bench decision in Glorious Investment Ltd. v. Dunlop International Ltd. (2025 SCC Online Cal 8647), to argue that the Registrar exercises quasi-judicial powers with trappings of a court, making the Single Judge’s order in the Section 91 appeal final.

The appellant countered that the right of appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act is a statutory right independent of the CPC. He argued that the Registrar is neither a court nor a tribunal with full trappings of a civil court, as the powers under Section 127 are limited and orders are not fully executable. He relied on older precedents under earlier trademark laws and contended that the Letters Patent, 1865 powers of the chartered High Court cannot be curtailed by implication through Section 100A CPC. The appellant also pointed to the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2023 of the Calcutta High Court as supporting further appeals.

Decision

The Division Bench, speaking through Justice Debangsu Basak (with Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi concurring), upheld the preliminary objection and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The Court held that once a Single Judge exercises appellate powers under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against the Registrar’s order, the prohibition under Section 100A CPC squarely applies, irrespective of whether the Registrar qualifies strictly as a “court” or whether the original order meets the technical definition of a “decree” under the CPC. The “notwithstanding” clause in Section 100A overrides the Letters Patent, 1865 and any other law.

The Bench noted that when the legislature substituted the Appellate Board with the High Court in Section 91 (with retrospective effect from 4 April 2021), Section 100A CPC (in its present form since 2002) was already in force. The legislature must be presumed to have been aware that no further appeal would lie from the Single Judge’s order. The Court distinguished or reconciled earlier precedents relied upon by the appellant, observing that many related to pre-amendment regimes or different statutes.

The appeal (TEMPAPO-IPD/2/2025) was accordingly dismissed without costs. The underlying rectification and cancellation of the appellant’s trademark registration thus stands upheld.

This judgment aligns with the Calcutta High Court’s earlier view in Glorious Investment and highlights a potential divergence with certain other High Courts on the availability of intra-court appeals in IP matters. It underscores the finality of Single Judge orders in trademark appeals to the High Court and reinforces the statutory bar under Section 100A CPC in such proceedings.

Case Details: Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury versus The Registrar of Trade Marks and Another, Order dated 24.04.2026, TEMPAPO-IPD/2/2025, Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Division), Honourable Justice Debangsu Basak and Honourable Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.

Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #TrademarkRectification #TrademarkAppeal #Section91TMAct #Section100ACPC #CalcuttaHighCourt #IndianIPLaw #LegalUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor

Headnote: Calcutta High Court Division Bench rules that no intra-court (Letters Patent) appeal lies against a Single Judge’s order dismissing an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 from a Registrar’s rectification order, in view of the bar under Section 100A CPC.

======

**Introduction**  

The Calcutta High Court has delivered an important ruling that clarifies the limits on appeals in trademark disputes. In a case involving the cancellation of a registered trademark, the Division Bench decided whether a party could file yet another appeal after losing before a Single Judge of the High Court. The decision touches on how special laws like the Trade Marks Act interact with general rules about appeals in civil cases. It provides clarity for businesses and lawyers dealing with trademark registrations and challenges, showing that once a Single Judge has heard an appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, the matter usually ends there without any further appeal to a larger bench.

**Factual Background**  

A businessman named Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury had successfully registered a label mark that included the words “Ganraj Chhappan Bhog” along with other design elements. Another party felt this registration should not have been granted and applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks for rectification, asking the Registrar to cancel the registration. After hearing both sides, the Registrar agreed with the challenger and cancelled the trademark registration belonging to Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury. Feeling wronged, the trademark owner challenged this cancellation before the High Court.

**Procedural Background**  

The owner first filed an appeal under the special provision in the Trade Marks Act that allows any person unhappy with the Registrar’s decision to approach the High Court. A Single Judge of the Intellectual Property Rights Division carefully examined the matter and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Registrar’s decision to cancel the registration. Not satisfied even after this, the owner filed a further appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, hoping for another chance to argue his case. The other party immediately raised an objection, saying this second appeal inside the same High Court was not allowed by law. The Division Bench heard detailed arguments only on this question of whether the further appeal could even be considered.

**Reasoning**  

The Division Bench, led by Justice Debangsu Basak with Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi agreeing, focused on a key rule in the general law of civil procedure. This rule states that when a Single Judge of a High Court hears and decides an appeal from any original or earlier order, no further appeal can be filed against that decision, no matter what other laws or old charters of the High Court might say. The judges explained that this bar applies whenever a Single Judge is exercising powers as an appeal court, regardless of whether the first decision came from a regular civil court or from a special authority like the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The Court noted that the Trade Marks Act allows an appeal from the Registrar’s order straight to the High Court. When the legislature changed the law to send such appeals to the High Court instead of a separate board, the general rule preventing further appeals was already part of the law. The judges felt the lawmakers must have known that Single Judge decisions in these matters would become final. They carefully reviewed arguments that the Registrar does not act like a full court and that special rules of the High Court might allow more appeals, but concluded that the broad wording of the general rule covers these situations. The focus remains on the fact that the Single Judge was hearing an appeal, which triggers the prohibition on any additional appeal.

**Judgements with Complete Citation and Their Context Discussed**  

The Division Bench placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Kamal Kumar Dutta and Another vs. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and Others* (2006) 7 SCC 613. In that case, the Supreme Court examined a similar situation under company law where appeals went to a Single Judge and held that no further appeal was possible because the law created a complete system with finality at that stage. The Calcutta High Court applied the same logic here, noting that the Registrar, while deciding rectification matters, performs quasi-judicial functions with many features similar to a court, such as hearing evidence and deciding rights between parties.

The Bench also referred to its own earlier coordinate bench ruling in *Glorious Investment Ltd vs. Dunlop International Ltd* (2025 SCC Online Cal 8647), which had already taken the view that further appeals are barred in trademark matters. Other Supreme Court cases like *Mohd. Saud and Another vs. Dr. (Maj.) Shaikh Mahfooz* (2010) 13 SCC 517 and *Geeta Devi and Others vs. Puran Ram Raigar and Another* (2010) 9 SCC 84 were cited to reinforce that appeals are creatures of statute and can be limited by clear legal provisions. The Court distinguished older cases from the time when trademark appeals went to different bodies or under previous laws, explaining that the current framework, read with the general civil procedure rule, leads to finality after the Single Judge’s order. A Delhi High Court view allowing further appeals in a similar context was noted but not followed, highlighting a possible difference of opinion between High Courts that may need higher clarification in future.

**Final Decision of Court**  

The Division Bench held that the further appeal before it was not maintainable in law. It dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the trademark cancellation. As a result, the Single Judge’s order upholding the Registrar’s decision to cancel the registration stands, and the matter reaches its final conclusion at that stage.

**Point of Law Settled in the Case**  

This judgment settles that when a person challenges the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision by filing an appeal before the High Court under the Trade Marks Act, the order passed by the Single Judge hearing that appeal is final. No additional appeal can be filed to a Division Bench of the same High Court because of the clear bar in the general civil procedure law. This brings certainty and speed to trademark disputes by limiting layers of appeals, while still allowing one full hearing before the High Court after the Registrar’s decision. It also shows that special intellectual property laws do not automatically override general rules designed to prevent endless litigation unless the statute expressly says so.

**Case Detail:** Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks and Another, Order dated 24.04.2026, TEMPAPO-IPD/2/2025, Calcutta High Court (Intellectual Property Rights Appellate Division), Honourable Justice Debangsu Basak and Honourable Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi.

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

**Suggested Titles for the Article:**  

1. No Second Appeal in Trademark Rectification Cases: Calcutta High Court Applies Bar Under Section 100A CPC  

2. Finality in Trademark Appeals: Calcutta High Court Rules Single Judge Orders Under Trade Marks Act Are Conclusive  

3. Calcutta High Court Limits Intra-Court Appeals in IP Matters, Reinforcing Statutory Finality  

**Suitable Tags:**  

#TrademarkAppeal #Section91TMAct #Section100ACPC #CalcuttaHighCourt #IPCaseLaw #TrademarkRectification #LettersPatentAppeal #IndianIPLaw #IPRUpdate #TrademarkLaw #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor #LegalUpdate #IPIndiaupdate

**Headnote of Article:**  

Calcutta High Court Division Bench holds that no further intra-court appeal lies against a Single Judge’s order passed in an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 from the Registrar’s rectification decision, due to the bar under Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure; the ruling emphasizes finality after one High Court appeal and aligns with the principle that appeals are statutory creations subject to legislative limits.

=====