Trademark Rectification has to be filed before the High Court under which Trademark Registry, granting Trademark Registration is situated
Fact of the Case:
Chunulal Seetaram filed an appeal under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, against the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding the rectification of the Trade Marks Register.
The main issue in the case revolved around the determination of the High Court having jurisdiction over appeals related to trade mark rectification.
The appellant approached the Madras High Court, challenging the decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks regarding rectification matters. The respondents objected, arguing that the proper jurisdiction for such appeals was the Bombay High Court, as the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks was situated in Bombay, and the Trade Marks Register was maintained there.
Procedural Background in Brief:
The appellant filed appeals against the Registrar's decision on trade mark rectification before the Madras High Court under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The respondents raised an objection, contending that since the Registrar’s Office and the Trade Marks Register were in Bombay, any appeal against the Registrar’s decisions should be filed before the Bombay High Court. The case was heard by Chief Justice P.V. Rajamannar and Justice Ganapatia Pillai of the Madras High Court. The court had to determine whether the Madras High Court had jurisdiction to hear these appeals or whether the proper forum was the Bombay High Court.
Reasoning of the Court:
The court ruled that under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, an appeal against the Registrar’s decision must be filed in the High Court having jurisdiction. Since the Registrar of Trade Marks’ office was located in Bombay and the rectification of the trade mark register was made there, the appropriate forum for appeals was the Bombay High Court.
The court relied on previous judgments, including Abdul Ghani v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1947 Lah 171, Tapton Tea Co. v. Liptons Ltd., MANU/PH/0131/1954, and Satyadeo v. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy, AIR 1958 All 823, all of which held that appeals related to trade mark rectification must be filed before the High Court where the Registrar’s Office is located.
The Madras High Court concluded that accepting appeals in different High Courts based on the applicant’s location would lead to jurisdictional confusion and contradictory rulings, which was not the intention of the legislature.
Decision:
The Madras High Court held that the appeals were incompetent and directed the memoranda of appeals to be returned to the appellants for presentation before the proper court, i.e., the Bombay High Court, within two months. The appellants were also directed to pay half the costs of the appeal to the respondents.
Case Title: Chunulal Seetaram Vs. G.S. Muthiah and Brothers & Ors.
Date of Order: February 17, 1959
Case Number: A.A.O. Nos. 74 of 1955 and 363 of 1956
Neutral Citation: AIR 1959 Mad 359, (1959) ILR Madras 823, 1959-72 LW 298, (1959) IMLJ 304
Name of Court: Madras High Court
Name of Hon’ble Judges: Hon’ble Chief Justice P.V. Rajamannar and Hon’ble Justice Ganapatia Pillai
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
