The cause of action for filing appeal against Order passed by Registrar of Trademark arise in that High Court where the decision was made by the Registrar of Trademarks
Introduction:
The case of Abdul Ghani Ahmad vs. Registrar of Trade Marks addressed a significant issue concerning the interpretation of “the High Court having jurisdiction” under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The primary legal question was whether the Lahore High Court had jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the Registrar of Trade Marks, whose office was situated in Bombay. The decision settled the principle that appeals against orders of the Registrar must be filed in the High Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Registrar's office is located unless an exception applies under the proviso to Section 76(1).
Detailed Factual Background:
The appellants, including Messrs. Abdul Ghani, Haji Ahmad, and Mohammad Sidik, applied for the registration of the trademark “Bombay Cloth House” with the Registrar of Trade Marks in Bombay. Separately, another appellant, Gowardhan Das, proprietor of Punjab Pharmaceutical Works, applied for the registration of the trademarks “Chinol” and “Grippe Wassar.” The Registrar of Trade Marks rejected these applications on different dates, specifically March 31, 1945, January 11, 1945, and March 23, 1945.
Following these rejections, the applicants requested the Registrar to provide written reasons for the refusals, as per Section 14(2) of the Trade Marks Act. Upon receiving these reasons, they decided to challenge the Registrar's decisions by filing appeals before the Lahore High Court under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
Detailed Procedural Background:
The appeals were filed before the Lahore High Court, raising a preliminary jurisdictional question: whether the Lahore High Court had the authority to entertain appeals against the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks, whose office was located in Bombay. The appellants contended that their applications for trademark registration had been sent from Lahore, and therefore, the Lahore High Court should have jurisdiction. The Registrar of Trade Marks opposed this claim, arguing that the appeals could only be filed in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Registrar’s Office was situated, i.e., the Bombay High Court.
The Lahore High Court examined the statutory framework of the Trade Marks Act and considered the impact of territorial jurisdiction on appeals against the Registrar’s decisions. The matter was heard by Justice Abdur Rahman, who had to determine the proper forum for such appeals.
Issues Involved in the Case:
Whether the Lahore High Court had jurisdiction under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, to entertain appeals against the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks, whose office was located in Bombay?
Detailed Submission of Parties:
The appellants argued that the Trade Marks Act does not expressly exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court within whose territory the application was filed. Since the applications for trademark registration were sent from Lahore, the Lahore High Court should have jurisdiction over the appeals. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which governs territorial jurisdiction, should be applied by analogy to grant jurisdiction to the Lahore High Court. The appellants had no control over where the Registrar’s Office was located, and therefore, jurisdiction should be determined based on the applicants’ residence or place of business.
The respondent argued that jurisdiction under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act was tied to the location of the Registrar’s Office, which was in Bombay. Allowing multiple High Courts to entertain appeals would lead to conflicting decisions and jurisdictional chaos. The Trade Marks Act was a special law, and general principles of civil jurisdiction under the CPC did not apply. The proviso to Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act explicitly provided for exceptions where jurisdiction could be determined based on pending litigation concerning the disputed trademark, but this proviso did not apply in the present case.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by the Parties:
The respondents relied on the legal principles and cases. In Rangoon Botatouing Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Rangoon (40 Cal 21 (27)), the case emphasized that in matters governed by special statutes, jurisdiction should be strictly interpreted based on the language of the statute. In Special Officer Salsette Building Sites v. Dorabhai Bezonji Motivalla (20 IC 763 (PC)), the Privy Council held that when a statute provides a specific appellate forum, appeals must be filed before the designated authority and not any other court. In Nur Mahomed v. S.M. Solaiman (49 CWN 10 (17)), the Calcutta High Court ruled that jurisdiction cannot be inferred from the plaintiff’s or petitioner’s place of residence unless expressly provided by statute.
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge:
Justice Abdur Rahman ruled that the Lahore High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeals for the following reasons.
The phrase "High Court having jurisdiction" in Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act must be interpreted based on the location of the Registrar’s Office.
Jurisdiction in such matters does not arise from where the application was sent or where the applicant resides. The cause of action for the appeal arose where the decision was made, i.e., in Bombay.
Applying general principles of civil jurisdiction under the CPC was inappropriate because the Trade Marks Act was a special statute with its own jurisdictional framework. The proviso to Section 76(1) allowed an appeal to be filed in a different High Court only if a trademark-related suit was already pending there. Since no such suit was pending in Lahore, this proviso was inapplicable. Allowing multiple High Courts to hear appeals against the Registrar’s decisions would create a risk of contradictory judgments, which would be against legislative intent.
Final Decision
The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and directed the appellants to file the appeals in the proper High Court, i.e., the Bombay High Court. However, since the issue was one of first impression, the court ordered that each party should bear its own costs.
Law Settled in This Case:
Appeals against decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, must be filed in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Registrar’s Office is located. The place from which a trademark application was sent or the residence of the applicant is irrelevant in determining appellate jurisdiction. The Trade Marks Act is a special statute, and its appellate jurisdiction must be determined based on its own provisions, not by analogy to general civil procedure principles. The proviso to Section 76(1) applies only when a trademark-related suit is already pending in a High Court or District Court and does not otherwise alter the jurisdiction of appeals.
Case Title: Abdul Ghani Ahmad Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks
Date of Order: May 29, 1946
Case Number: First Appeal Nos. 170 to 172 of 1945
Citation: AIR 1947 Lah 171
Name of Court: Lahore High Court
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Justice Abdur Rahman
Disclaimer: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.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] ,High Court of Delhi
