Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Miscellaneous Applications Nos.23 to 25 of 1982, decided on 28th August, 1986.
‑‑‑S.14‑‑Trade Marks Rules, 1963, R. 24/25‑‑Trade mark‑‑Application for registration‑‑Registrar while refusing applications of appellant neither communicating objections to appellant nor hearing him‑‑Registrar, held, violated mandatory provision of law‑‑Order of Registrar set aside and case remanded to Registrar with direction to process applications in accordance with law.
Ashraf Ali for Appellants.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th August, 1986.
This judgment would dispose of the above three appeals filed by the appellants against the common decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant has sent three applications. The learned Registrar had disposed of the Applications Nos.71104 and 71105 but did not pass any order with respect to Application No.71108. These applications were received by the Registrar on 11‑2‑1980 for registration of a label for goods like Macaroni. The Registrar has observed that Mr. Osman Ahmad was summoned and was advised to produce the duly authenticated letter of authority in his favour because the same party has authorised M/s. United Traders Syndicate of Lahore as their representative against the General Power of Attorney: The appointment of M/s. United Traders Syndicate was found to be more authentic and when Mr. Osman was confronted with the facts and asked to produce a fresh letter of authority he withdrew himself from all the three applications. On merits it has been observed that the labels do not carry any trade mark, nor the colour combination thereof is distinctive per se and there is no use to the credit of the application some consideration could be given to the colour aspect. The two applications 71104 and 71105 were refused on 16‑9‑1981.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Registrar has violated the principles of natural justice as well as mandatory provisions of rule 24(1) of the, Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963. It is contended that it was incumbent upon the Registrar to have informed the appellant but the Registrar never communicated the objection: Rule 24(1,) of the Revised Trade Marks Rules 1963 reads as under:‑
"24.‑‑(l) If on consideration of the application, and of any evidence of use or of distinctiveness or of any other matter which the applicant may or may be required to furnish the Registrar has any objection to, the acceptance of the application or proposes to accept it subject to such conditions, amendments, disclaimers, modifications or limitations as he may think right, impose, the Registrar shall communicate such objection or proposal in writing to the applicant."
A bare reading of this rule would show that it was imperative that the Registrar shall communicate the objection in writing to the appellant but no such objection has been communicated to the appellant. Under rule 25 the decision of the Registrar at a hearing under rule 24, or without a hearing if the applicant has duly communicated his observations in writing and has stated that he does not desire to be heard, shall be communicated to the applicant in writing.
Under section 14 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 when an application is made the Registrar may refuse the application or may accept it Subject to such amendment modification, condition or limitation, if any, as he may think fit, but clause (2) of section 14 clearly stipulates that in the case of refusal or conditional acceptance the Registrar shall, if required by the applicant, state in writing the grounds of his decision and the materials used by him in arriving thereat. Subsection (2) of section 14 also makes it clear that such order would only be passed after giving the opportunity to the applicant to place his case before the Registrar. The Registrar has clearly violated the provisions of law.
3. In the instant case as the Registrar has not communicated any objection and the appellants were not heard before passing the impugned order, the impugned order cannot be sustained. As such the order under appeal is set aside and the Registrar is directed to proceed to process the application in accordance with law. There would be no order as to costs.
M.Y.H. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer