Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 2886 Cal/2
Judgement Date : 10 September, 2024
OCD-12
ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
[COMMERCIAL DIVISION]
IPDTMA/76/2023
DUDHERIA TEXTILE PRIVATE LIMITED
-VS-
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS AND OTHERS
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Date : September 10, 2024.
Appearance:
Mr. Sayantan Basu, Adv.
Ms. Tanmoy Roy, Adv.
Mr. Koushik Mukherjee, Adv.
... for the Appellant
Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, Adv.
Mr. Shounak Ghosh, Adv.
... for the respondent nos.1 & 2
Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Adv.
Ms. Sagnika Dhar, Adv.
... for the respondent no.3
The Court: Mr. Sayantan Basu, learned counsel, is appearing for
the Appellant.
Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri, learned counsel, is appearing for the
respondent nos.1 & 2.
Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, learned counsel, is appearing for the
respondent no.3.
The appellant has filed the present appeal against an order dated
23rd January, 2023 passed by the Hearing Officer of Trade Marks. Counsel
for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the
case of Visa International Ltd. Vs. Visa International Service
Association & Anr. being IPDTMA/82/2023 with GA-COM/1/2024 dated
02nd August, 2024 wherein this Court held that the "The Registrar dealing
with an application under the Trade Mark Act is a quasi judicial and
delegation of power under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act are not
empowered to pass quasi judicial orders." He submits that in the present
case the same officer has passed the impugned order being a Hearing
Officer of the Trade Marks.
Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the
appellant. Perused the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Visa
International Ltd. (Supra). The impugned order dated 23rd January, 2023
is passed by the same officer who was engaged on contract basis as
Hearing Officer or Associate Manager who is not competent to pass quasi
judicial order.
Accordingly, The impugned order is set aside and quashed. The
matter is remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Kolkata to hear
the matter afresh by himself or by any competent officer other than the
Officer who passed the impugned order and to pass reasoned and speaking
order by giving an opportunity of hearing to all the parties of the objection
within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Though this Court has not gone into the merit of this case, all the
points have been kept open to be decided by either by the Registrar himself
or the competent officers appointed by the Registrar for disposal of the
matter.
IPDTMA/76/2023 is disposed of.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.)
S.De
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!