Relief for Trademark Practitioners: Calcutta HC Sets Aside Orders Passed by Trademark Managers

Overview of the Judgement

On August 2, 2024, the High Court at Calcutta, presided by Justice Krishna Rao, delivered a significant judgement concerning the authority and validity of orders passed by Associate Managers of Trade Marks appointed by the Quality Council of India (QCI). The judgement addressed three appeals (IPDTMA 82 of 2023, IPDTMA 83 of 2023, and IPDTMA 1 of 2024) challenging orders issued by Associate Managers on the grounds of their legal authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Background of the Appeals

The appellants in all three cases questioned whether Associate Managers of Trade Marks, such as Shraman Chattopadhyay and Saurabh Dubey, were legally empowered to pass the orders in question. The specific appeals were as follows:

1. IPDTMA 82 of 2023 and IPDTMA 83 of 2023: Both appeals challenged orders dated September 16, 2023, issued by Shraman Chattopadhyay in opposition cases against applications No. 1363190 in Classes 06 and 35.
2. IPDTMA 1 of 2024: This appeal challenged an order dated October 6, 2023, issued by Saurabh Dubey concerning the application No. 1536319 for the registration of the mark “HANDLOOM GARDEN” in Class 35.

Legal Issues and Arguments

The core issue raised by the appellants was whether the Associate Managers had the legal authority to pass quasi-judicial orders. The arguments presented by the appellants’ counsel included:

1. Lack of Authorization: The appellants contended that the Associate Managers were not authorized under law to exercise the functions of the Registrar of Trade Marks as prescribed under Section 3(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2. Delegation of Powers: It was argued that the delegation of quasi-judicial functions under Section 3(2) of the Act was not permissible, as the section intended to delegate only administrative functions under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar .

Relevant Legal Provisions

• Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999: This section allows the Central Government to appoint the Controller-General of Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks, who acts as the Registrar of Trade Marks. It also permits the appointment of other officers to discharge functions of the Registrar, provided they are authorized by the Registrar.
• Section 2(2)(d) of the Act: This subsection includes references to any officer discharging the functions of the Registrar under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court analyzed the legal provisions and previous judicial interpretations, notably the judgment in J.K. Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India. The key points of the court’s decision were:

1. Quasi-Judicial Functions: The court emphasized that quasi-judicial functions must be performed independently and cannot be delegated under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar. This interpretation was crucial in determining the limits of Section 3(2) of the Trade Marks Act .
2. Validity of Orders: The court found that the orders passed by the Associate Managers, Shraman Chattopadhyay and Saurabh Dubey, were invalid as they were not authorized to perform quasi-judicial functions. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and quashed .
3. Remand for Fresh Hearing: The matters were remanded to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh decision by a competent officer within six months, ensuring that the parties received a fair opportunity of hearing .

Conclusion

This decision comes as a sigh of relief for trademark agents, attorneys, and practitioners nationwide, reaffirming the critical importance of adhering to statutory provisions regarding the delegation of powers within the Trade Marks Act. By invalidating the orders passed by unauthorized Associate Managers, the High Court has ensured that only duly authorized and independent officers can perform quasi-judicial functions. This judgement not only upholds the integrity and legal compliance of the Trade Marks Registry’s operations but also provides clarity and assurance to stakeholders involved in trademark matters, ensuring that their cases are handled by appropriately empowered officials.