Fact of the Case:
Tapton Tea Company, a firm based in Amritsar, applied for the registration of the trade mark "Tapton Tea". The application was opposed by Lipton Ltd., a company registered in England with its head office in India at Calcutta. The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks at Bombay refused the application for registration based on the opposition filed by Lipton Ltd. The appellant, Tapton Tea Company, filed an appeal before the Punjab High Court challenging the refusal of registration. The key issue in the case was whether the Punjab High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, given that the order was passed by the Deputy Registrar at Bombay.
Procedural Background in Brief:
The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks at Bombay rejected the trade mark application of Tapton Tea Company upon opposition from Lipton Ltd. The appellant, instead of filing an appeal before the Bombay High Court, filed it before the Punjab High Court, citing its place of business in Amritsar as the basis for jurisdiction. The respondents objected, arguing that under Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, appeals against the Registrar’s decisions must be filed in the High Court having jurisdiction, which, in this case, was the Bombay High Court.
Reasoning of the Court:
The court analyzed Section 76(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, which provides that an appeal against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks must be filed in the High Court having jurisdiction. The court relied on the precedent set in Abdul Ghani Ahmad vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1947 Lah 171, where it was held that an appeal against an order of the Registrar at Bombay must be filed in the Bombay High Court, even if the appellant's business was located elsewhere.
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that Section 76 did not explicitly state that appeals must be filed in the High Court of the Registrar's location. It held that the phrase "High Court having jurisdiction" was intended to refer to the High Court within whose territorial limits the office of the Registrar passing the order was situated. The court also noted that in James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd. vs. National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd., AIR 1951 Bom 147, a Madras firm had appealed against an order of the Registrar at Bombay before the Bombay High Court, which further established that jurisdiction lay with the Registrar’s location, not the appellant’s business location.
The court concluded that allowing appeals to be filed in different High Courts based on the appellant’s place of business would create confusion and lead to conflicting decisions. It also found that the proviso to Section 76(1), which allows an appeal to be filed in a different High Court only if a related suit or proceeding is already pending there, did not apply to the present case.
Decision:
The Punjab High Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and directed that the memorandum of appeal be returned to the appellants for presentation before the proper court, i.e., the Bombay High Court. No order as to costs was made.
Case Title: Tapton Tea Company Vs. The Liptons Ltd.
Date of Order: July 26, 1954
Case Number: F.A.F.O. No. 93 of 1953
Neutral Citation: AIR 1954 P&H 270
Name of Court: Punjab High Court
Name of Hon’ble Judges: Hon’ble Justice G.D. Khosla and Hon’ble Justice D. Falshaw
