A registered trade marks agent is entitled to plead before the Registrar of Trade Marks under the provisions of S. 80 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks under S. 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The appeal raises a very interesting question as regards the right of a Registered Trade Marks agent to plead before the Registrar of Trade Marks.

(2) The facts giving rise to the appeal, briefly stated, are as under: The respondent to this appeal filed an application under the Trade Marks Act for registering a certain trade mark in respect of certain pharmaceutical preparations. The petitioners opposed the said application. Evidence by way of affidavits was filed by both the parties in the case. The case ultimately came up for hearing before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, who was discharging the functions of the Registrar of Trade Marks under the said Act. At the bearing the respondent was represented by Mr. P. S. Pai, a Registered Trade Marks Agent. At the hearing which took place before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks on 4-11-1955, the advocate for the petitioners objected to Mr. Pai being heard in the matter, contending that Mr. Pai had no right of audience before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. The matter being of considerable importance to all Registered Trade Marks Agents, was argued at great length before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. Quite a number of days were spent in canvassing the rival points of view before the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. Ultimately on 11-7-1956 the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks delivered a considered judgment holding that Mr. Pai, who was a registered trade marks agent, was entitled to be heard. From that decision the petitioners have come by way of appeal to the High Court.

(2a) The main question that arises for consideration is whether a registered trade marks agent is entitled to plead before the Registrar of Trade Marks under the provisions of S. 80 of the Trade Marks Act. S. 80 of that Act runs as follows:

"Where by or under this Act any act, other than the making of an affidavit, is required to be done by any person, the act may, subject to prescribed conditions or in special cases with the consent of the Central Government, be done, in lieu of by that person himself, by a duly authorised agent, being either a legal practitioner or a person registered in the prescribed manner as a trade marks agent."

Under S. 84 the Central Government is empowered to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the purpose of the Act. Section 84 (2) (1) provides that the Central Government may make rules and prescribe the conditions subject to which an agent referred to in S. 80 may act. In exercise of the powers conferred under S. 84 the Central Government has framed diverse rules relating to the persons who may act as agents within the meaning of S. 80 of the Act. The relevant rules are Rules 128 to 141 appearing in Part IV of the Rules. Rule 130 relates to the eligibility of persons entitled to be registered as Trade Marks Agents. Rule 138 provides fir the removal of persons whose names are entered in the Register of Agents. There are various other rules relating to the enrolment of

1959 Anglo French Drug Co. v. R. D. Tinaikar (K. T. Desai J.) [Prs. 2a-3] Bombay 23

trade marks agents and the maintenance of a register of such trade marks agents. What is contended is that S. 80 does not empower a person whose name is entered in the register of Registered Trade Marks Agents to plead before the Registrar of Trade Marks. It is contended that the expression "act" as appearing in S. 80 relates merely to what is technically known as "acting" as distinguished from pleading before any tribunal. It is urged that a registered trade marks agent is entitled to act, but not to plead before the Registrar. It is contended that the word "act" even though used as a noun can only relate to acts done in the course of acting and not in the course of pleading before the Registrar. Strong reliance is placed by Mr. Vaidya, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, on a decision reported in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document