The Registrar of Trade Marks has inherent jurisdiction to stay any proceedings before him for sound reasons, including the pendency of another proceeding involving common issues.

S. Srinivasan, J.

On 2.9.1991, when C.M.P. No. 7693 of 1991. petition for grant of interim suspension of the order of stay granted by the Deputy Registrar came up for orders, at the request of both counsel, I directed the matter to be posted for hearing the appeal today. Unfortunately. it was not included in the list. Counsel on both sides made a representation in the morning that they were ready to go on with the appeal and wanted the appeal to be heard. Hence, I sent for the papers and heard the appeal.

2. This appeal is against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, staying the proceedings in opposition No. MAS 1913 to Application No. 383795 till after the disposal of Opposition to Application No. 358541 pending at Calcutta. The short facts are as follows :

The appellant has been using the trade mark "SHARP", according to it, for more than thirty years on its goods. It is not necessary for me to set out the sales figures or the amount spent for advertisements, as the scope of this appeal is very limited. The appellant has obtained registration of the mark on four occasions in 1961, 1977, 1977 and 1980, with reference to different goods in the same class. It is stated that they are all subject matter of Applications for rectification filed by the respondent and those applications are said to be pending. The appellant filed Application No. 383795 for registration of the trade mark with reference to particular goods. That application was filed on 3.12.1981. It was accepted and advertised in the Trade Marks Journal on 1.3.1986. The respondent initiated Opposition Proceedings No. MAS 1913 in June 1986. When the proceedings were pending, the respondent applied for stay of those proceedings on the ground that it had already applied for registration of the same mark with reference to the goods specified in Class 9 in IV Schedule and that the application was pending from 13.2.1980. The reasons set out in the petition for stay were two-fold. One, the pendency of the earlier application for registration filed by the respondent before the Registrar at Calcutta and the opposition thereto by the appellant, which is also pending and two, the pendency of the rectification proceedings as regards the registrations obtained by the appellant earlier.

3. Both the grounds raised by the respondent were rejected by the Registrar. But, he proceeded to grant stay on the ground that certain issues were common to both the proceedings and there will be multiplicity of proceedings, if they are continued simultaneously. The Registrar also opined that it would be more convenient to decide the issues first in the Calcutta Proceedings. Accordingly, he granted an order of stay.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Registrar having rejected the two grounds urged by the respondent, ought not to have granted stay on other grounds. According to learned counsel, there is no issue in common. It is submitted that the question of ownership of the mark does not arise at all.

According to learned counsel for the appellant, it is open to both the parties to get registration under Section 12(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, under special circumstances. It is also argued that merely because there will be multiplicity of proceedings, there cannot be stay of one proceeding when the issues which arise for consideration in the Calcutta Proceedings do not arise in the Madras Proceeding.

5. The only question to be decided by me is whether the Registrar has exercised his discretion properly and in accordance with law while granting stay of the proceedings before him. It cannot be disputed that the Registrar has power to grant stay. No doubt, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules, expressly empowering the Registrar to stay the proceedings. But, it is really a matter of inherent power. The Registrar is a Tribunal and any Tribunal can stay a proceeding before itself. Express conferment of po