Skip to content


Chunulal Seetaram Vs. G.S. Muthiah and Brothers and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectIntellectual Property Rights
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. Nos. 74 of 1955 and 363 of 1956
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Mad359
ActsTrade Marks Act, 1940 - Sections 76(1)
AppellantChunulal Seetaram
RespondentG.S. Muthiah and Brothers and ors.
Appellant AdvocateV.T. Rangaswami Iyengar and ;T.E. Raghavachariar, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateV. Thiagarajan and ;T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Advs. and ;Government Pleader
DispositionAppeal returned
Cases Referred and Satyadeo v. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy
Excerpt:
trade mark act (v of 1940), section 76--high court having jurisdiction--high court at bombay; as the office of the registrar of trade marks is situated in bombay and the register of trade marks is also kept in bombay and the rectification is made in that register, the high court having jurisdiction under section 76 of the trade marks act (v of 1940) is the higher court at bombay. - - 1. both these appeals have been filed under section 76 of the trade marks act against decisions of the registrar regarding rectification of the trade marks register. under section 76(1)"save as otherwise expressly provided in the act, an appeal shall lie from any decision of the registrar under the act or the rules made thereunder to the high court having jurisdiction." the office of the registrar of trade marks is situated in bombay. the register of trade marks is kept at bombay and the rectification is made in that register. ' it must, therefore, be held that the high court having jurisdiction in the matter is the high court at bombay. there is ample authority to support this conclusion in the decisions in abdul ghani v. registrar of trade marks, air 1947 lah 171, tapton tea co. v......
Judgment:
1. Both these appeals have been filed under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act against decisions of the Registrar regarding rectification of the Trade Marks Register. Under Section 76(1)

"Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act, an appeal shall lie from any decision of the Registrar under the Act or the rules made thereunder to the High Court having Jurisdiction." The office of the Registrar of Trade Marks is situated in Bombay. The Register of Trade Marks is kept at Bombay and the rectification is made in that register. ' It must, therefore, be held that the High Court having jurisdiction in the matter is the High Court at Bombay. There is ample authority to support this conclusion in the decisions in Abdul Ghani v. Registrar of Trade Marks, AIR 1947 Lah 171, Tapton Tea Co. v. Liptons Ltd., and Satyadeo v. Amrit Dhara Pharmacy . Learned counsel for the

respondents has also brought to our notice two un-reported decisions of the Calcutta and Punjab High Courts respectively taking the same view, but we do not think ir necessary to refer to them. The appeals to this court are, therefore, incompetent. We direct that the memoranda of appeals in these two appeals he returned to the parties to be presented to the proper court within two months from this date. The appellants in each appeal shall pay half costs of the appeal to the respondents in each appeal.

2. The appellant will pay half the costs of the contesting party respondent. Advocate's fees Rs. 150 in each case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //