SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 1633

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.
HDFC BANK STAFF UNION, KOCHI – Petitioner
Versus
BANKING OMBUDSMAN RESERVE BANK OF INDIA – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 40192 of 2018
Decided On : 17-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: V.K. PRASAD, R. SUDHIR, C. SIVADAS, M. PRAVEESH
For the Respondents: SAJI VARGHESE, MARIAM MATHAI

A Trade Union is not engaged in trade, thus provisions of the Trade Marks Act regarding infringement do not apply.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 28 and 29 - Trade Union seeking to open a bank account - Bank's refusal based on trademark infringement - Court held that the Trade Union is not engaged in trade, thus provisions of the Trade Marks Act do not apply - Findings in Ext.P1 cannot be sustained. (Paras 5, 6, 9)

(B) Trade Unions Act, 1926 - Definition of Trade Union - Activities of the Trade Union do not amount to commercial activity, hence not subject to trademark infringement provisions. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a registered Trade Union, sought to open a bank account but was denied by the bank citing trademark infringement, claiming the name used infringed its registered trademark. The petitioner argued it was not engaged in any trading activity.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a Trade Union, is not engaged in trade or commercial activities, thus the provisions of the Trade Marks Act do not apply.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner’s activities constituted trade and if the bank's refusal was justified under the Trade Marks Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the petitioner is not engaged in trade, the provisions of the Trade Marks Act regarding infringement do not apply, and the findings in Ext.P1 were unsustainable.

Result: Writ petition allowed, Ext.P1 set aside, and respondents directed to process the application for opening the account.

JUDGMENT :

HARISANKAR V. MENON, J.

1. Petitioner is stated to be a registered Trade Union representing the employees of the 2nd respondent Bank. The petitioner sought to open an account with the 3rd respondent Branch of the 2nd respondent Bank and since there was delay in processing the request for opening the Bank account, a complaint was filed before the 1st respondent herein, as evidenced by Ext.P6 dated 27.04.2018. In response to Ext.P6, the 2nd respondent submitted Ext.P7 reply dated 31.05.2018 before the 1st respondent herein pointing out that the account cannot be permitted to be opened since the petitioner is seeking opening of account in the name of “HDFC Bank Staff Union” which would amount to an infringement of its registered trade mark. The petitioner submitted Ext.P10 rejoinder dated 13.06.2018 essentially pointing out that it is neither a trader/manufacturer/service provider functioning in competition with the 2nd respondent herein and, therefore, there is no violation of the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. However, by Ext.P1 communication dated 17.07.2018, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that its complaint could not be entertained.

2. Though an appeal was filed before the Reserve Bank of India by Ext.P12, the afore appeal was rejected holding that no appeal lies against the order at Ext.P1.

3. It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 issued by the 1st respondent and also seeking a direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to open the account in the name of the petitioner as applied for by it.

4. I have heard Advocate Josna C.F. representing Sri. V.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Saji Varghese, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Bank.

5. The challenge in this writ petition is essentially with reference to the findings in Ext.P1 issued by the 1st respondent. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is a registered Trade Union representing the employees of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, on the other hand, is a banking company engaged in banking/financial/monetary activities. The application for opening a bank account in the name of the petitioner Union is resisted by the 2nd respondent with reference to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, contending that it had already obtained registration under the afore Statute as regards the trademark, as evidenced by Ext.P7(A). The registration, as above, is obtained by the 2nd respondent under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Chapter IV of the afore Act lays down the effect of obtaining a registration. Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides for the rights conferred on account of the registration in the following terms:

    “Section 28. Rights conferred by registration:

    (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of a trade mark shall, if valid, give to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by this Act.”

A reading of the afore provision would show that on account of a registered trade mark, the 2nd respondent gains the exclusive right to use the same in relation to “goods/services” in respect to which the trade mark is registered. As already noticed, the 2nd respondent has obtained registration for the activities noted in Ext.P7(A) registration and there is no case for the 2nd respondent that the petitioner is engaged in any of the afore activities noticed in Ext.P7(A).

6. The 2nd respondent also relies on the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, which read as under:

    “Section 29. Infringement of registered trade marks:

    (1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top