Case Title:Combined Appeals in IPDTMA No. 82 of 2023, IPDTMA No. 83 of 2023 (Visa International Ltd. v. Visa International Service Association & Anr.) and IPDTMA No. 1 of 2024 (Garden Silk Mills Private Limited v. Rajesh Mallick & Ors.)
Date of Order:August 2, 2024
Case No.:IPDTMA No. 82 of 2023; IPDTMA No. 83 of 2023; IPDTMA No. 1 of 2024 (IA No. GA-COM 1 of 2024)
Court:High Court at Calcutta (Original Side – Commercial Division)
Judge:Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao
Facts of the Case:
The appellants challenged orders passed in trademark opposition proceedings by contractual Associate Managers of the Trade Marks Registry. In IPDTMA Nos. 82 and 83 of 2023, the impugned order dated September 16, 2023, was issued by Mr. Shraman Chattopadhyay in an opposition against trademark application No. 1363190 (Classes 06 and 35). In IPDTMA No. 1 of 2024, a similar challenge was raised against an order dated October 6, 2023, passed by Mr. Saurabh Dubey concerning the registration of the mark “HANDLOOM GARDEN” in Class 35. The appellants contended that these Associate Managers, engaged on a contractual basis with clearly limited terms (with Mr. Chattopadhyay’s engagement ending on May 31, 2023), were not empowered to exercise quasi‑judicial functions in such proceedings.
Issues Raised:
1. Authority to Exercise Quasi‑Judicial Powers:
Whether contractual Associate Managers are empowered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to pass quasi‑judicial orders in opposition proceedings.
2. Validity of Orders Beyond Contractual Period:
Whether orders passed by officers after the expiry of their contractual engagement are legally valid.
3. Delegation of Judicial Functions:
Whether the delegation of administrative functions under Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act extends to the exercise of judicial functions in trademark matters.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:
Statutory Interpretation:
The Court examined Sections 3 and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. While the Act permits the Central Government to delegate administrative functions to various officers, quasi‑judicial powers must be exercised independently by a properly empowered officer. The delegation intended by the Act does not extend to passing judicial orders.
Contractual Limitations:
The Court noted that Mr. Shraman Chattopadhyay’s offer of engagement explicitly stated that his appointment could not continue beyond May 31, 2023. Since his order was passed on September 16, 2023, it was rendered ultra vires. Similarly, the legitimacy of Mr. Saurabh Dubey’s appointment as Associate Manager was questioned.
Organizational Structure:
The recruitment rules and the organizational structure of the Trade Marks Registry were examined, and no post of “Associate Manager” was found to be authorized to exercise quasi‑judicial functions. This supported the appellants’ claim that such officers lack the requisite jurisdiction.
Precedential Support:
Relying on established case law that holds an act void ab initio if passed by an unauthorized officer, the Court reasoned that orders passed under such circumstances automatically collapse without the need for a separate quashing order.
Decision of the Judge:
The impugned orders passed by Mr. Shraman Chattopadhyay (dated September 16, 2023) and Mr. Saurabh Dubey (dated October 6, 2023) were set aside and quashed. The appeals in IPDTMA Nos. 82, 83 of 2023 and IPDTMA No. 1 of 2024 were allowed. The matter was remanded to the Registrar, Trade Marks, with instructions to have the case reconsidered afresh by a competent officer after affording an opportunity of hearing to all parties. The Registrar or the designated officer is further directed to dispose of the matter within six months from the receipt of this order.
