The validity of a trademark registration cannot be challenged in an injunction proceeding for alleged infringement because the registration is prima facie evidence of its validity under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and is presumed to be valid after seven years from the date of registration unless obtained by fraud or in violation of Section 8.

JUDGMENT :- (Delivered by Anantanarayanan J.) : Both these related Letters Patent Appeals have been instituted respectively by the defendants in A. S. Nos. 560 and 561 of 1956 before a learned Judge of this Court (Ramachandra Iyer J. as he then was) with reference to the injunction granted by the learned Judge in respect of a registered trade mark (Manthithope,) used in the context of designating medicinal oils. In both the appeals, which differ upon the particular facts otherwise, the common ground is that this name, being a georgraphical appellation of a village in Tirunelveli District, ought not to have been registered as a trade mark. Further it is pleaded that the respondents were not entitled to obtain an injunction of this kind in respect of such an invalid registration offending the provisions of S. 6 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 (V of 1940), which Act governs the parties to this action.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals (Sri R. Gopalaswami Aiyangar and Sri M.R. Narayanaswami). They have attempted to advance the same proposition as that which was advanced before the learned Judge, namely, that the registration of this trade mark (Manthi thope) even in the context of the designation of a particular class of goods, medicinal oils, amounts to a registration of the geographical appellation of a village as a trade mark, and is thus invalid. On the same ground it is alleged that the respondents are not entitled to injunct the appellants. It is sufficient for us to observe that the learned Judge (Ramachandra Iyer J.) went into this matter in considerable detail with reference to the authorities cited by him in his judgment, particularly, the English authorities. After reviewing them, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the registration of a geographical name as a trade mark is not absolutely prohibited, as would have been the case if S. 6 (d) (i) had stood alone, but, that by virtue of S. 6 (e) there is a discretion to register even a geographical name, if it is distinctive in relation to a particular class of goods, in this case to medicinal oils.

3. It seems to us that these Letters Patent Appeals must fail upon a shorter and simpler ground, even if there are two views possible upon the above conclusion of the learned Judge. The shorter ground is that it is fairly obvious, having reference to the relevant sections of the Act, that the validity of this registration could not be canvassed at all within the scope of the present proceedings. S. 23 of the Act enunciates that in all legal proceedings, the registration of a trade mark would be prima facie evidence of its validity. Section 24 equally declares that in all legal proceedings relating to a registered trade mark, the original registration of the trade mark, after the expiry of seven years from the date of such original registration, should be taken to be valid in all respects unless such registration was obtained by fraud, or unless the trade mark offends the provisions of S. 8 of the Act. We may here observe, in passing, that S. 8 has also been referred to by the learned Judge, and that that section relates to certain prohibitions of a special kind, such as the existence of a scandalous design, or the use of any design which might be disentitled to protection in a court of justice, which are not relevant to the present context.

4. Under S. 46 of the Act read with S. 72 of the Act, there is a special procedure provided for modification or cancellation of the registered trade mark by any person aggrieved. We might add since, that is also a relevant fact, that the appellants have actually instituted a proceeding under these sections (O. P. 152 of 1959) which is now pending on the original side jurisdiction of this court for rectification of the register by expunging this trade mark. Under these circumstances it appears to be abundantly clear to us that the validity of the registration cannot be