Barclays Bank Plc vs Mr. Jeevan Kumar
2022 Latest Caselaw 691 Cal/2

OD 9

                               ORDER SHEET
                                TMA/2/2021
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                               ORIGINAL SIDE

                        BARCLAYS BANK PLC
                              Versus
    MR. JEEVAN KUMAR, SENIOR EXAMINER OF TRADE MARK AND ANR.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHEKHAR B. SARAF
  Date: 28th February, 2022.

  (Via Video Conference)

                                                                        Appearance:
                                                          Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
                                                         Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Adv.
                                                               Mr. B. Banerjee, Adv.
                                                             Mr. Pradipta Bose, Adv.
                                                                  ...for the appellant

                                                  Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Adv.
                                                         Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv.
                                                              ...for the respondents

The Court: This is an appeal filed against an order passed by the learned

Senior Examiner of Trade Marks in relation to an application for registration of a

Trade Mark.

Upon perusal of the order dated January 15, 2019 and the grounds

provided thereafter by an order dated November 2, 2020, I am of the view that

the orders passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with the

grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the

Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal (L)

No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso Outotec

Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments.

I do agree that brevity is required, however, complete lack of reasons upon

which the authority has based the order cannot be accepted by this Court.

In light of the same, the order is quashed and set aside.

I make it clear that all points shall be kept open before the authority. The

authority is directed to grant a fresh hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass

a reasoned order in terms of Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 within a

period of eight weeks from date.

Accordingly, TMA/2/2021 is disposed of.

(SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.) B.Pal