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

1959 Supreme(Mad) 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Ganapatia Pillai
Chunulal Seetaram
Versus
G.S. Muthiah and Bro. Mylapuram, Tirunelveli District
A.A.O. Nos. 74 of 1955 and 363 of 1956. (28th Magha, 1880-Saka.)
Decided On : 17 February 1959

Advocates:
V.T. Rangaswami Ayyangar and T.E. Raghavachariar, for Appellant.
The Government Pleader (B.V. Viswanatha Ayyar) and T.S. Krishnamurthi Ayyar, for Respondents.

Office of Registrar and the register at Bombay.

Headnote:Trade Marks Act, 1940-Section 76 -Maintainability of appeal before High Court against decision of Registrar of Trade Mark rectifying the register.

       

Rajamannar, C.J.-

Both these appeals have been filed under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act against decisions of the Registrar regarding rectification of the Trade Mark Register. Under section 76 (1):

“Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, an appeal shall lie from any decision of the Registrar under the Act or the rules made thereunder to the High Court having jurisdiction.”

The office of the Registrar of Trade Marks, is situated in Bombay. The Register of the Trade Marks is kept at Bombay and the rectification is made in that register. It must, therefore, be held that the High Court having jurisdiction in the matter is the High Court at Bombay. There is ample authority to support this conclusion in the decisions in Abdul Ghani v. Registrar of Trade Marks1, Tap On Tea Co. v. The Liptons,Ltd.,2 and Satya Deo v. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy3. Learned counsel for the respondents has also brought to our notice two unreported decisions of the Calcutta and Punjab High Courts respectively taking the same view; but, we do not think it necessary to refer to them. The appeals to this Court are, therefore, incompetent. We direct that the memoranda of appeals in these two appeals be returned to the parties to be presented to the proper Court within two months to the respondents in each appeal.

These appeals having been set down this day for being mentioned, the Court made the following

Order.-The appellant will pay half the costs of the contesting party respondent. Advocate’s fees Rs. 150 in each case.

V.S. ----- Memo, of appeals returned for presentation to proper Court.



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