Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

S. Jagadeesan, Chairman

1. The Appellant filed this Appeal against the order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai, finding that the appellant has committed an offence under Section 107 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The Appellant filed the Suit C.S. No. 726/2004 on the file of the High Court of Madras, against the 1st respondent herein and others for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the first respondent or their representatives from claiming or offering for sale with the use of the trade mark MAHARAJA in relation to rice and other consequential reliefs. In the plaint filed by the appellant, they have claimed that they are the registered owners of the trade mark MAHARAJA SPECIAL the word mark MAHARAJA with a device of Air India Maharaja which is being used by the appellant. Their further plea is that the respondent and others who are the defendants in the suit adopted the mark MAHARAJA and the device of Maharaja knowing fully well that the Plaintiffs are the registered owners of the trade mark and its reputation. Since the appellants are the registered proprietors of the trade mark MAHARAJA SPECIAL word per-se without the device, their claim that they are the proprietors of the registered trade mark of the word MAHARAJA and also with the device of Maharaja is a false representation since the appellants claim the unregistered trade mark as a registered one, their commission falls under the mischief of Section 107 of the said Act and accordingly the respondent gave a complaint to the Trade Marks Registry. After full fledged enquiry, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, under the impugned order, found that the appellant committed an offence under Section 107(1) of the said Act. Against the said order, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

4. The learned Counsel for the first respondent, on the contrary, contended that the claim made by the appellant in the plaint filed in the Civil Suit on the file of the High Court of Madras, clearly makes out a case that the appellant claimed the mark MAHARAJA word per-se as well as the device of Maharaja as their registered trade mark, whereas the registration is only in respect of mark word per-se. Hence, the respondent, bonafidely gave a complaint under Section 107 to the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai, for suitable action. The claim of the appellant that the label used by him in which a reference is made to the registration number would only be in relation to the word mark MAHARAJA and it has nothing to do with the device inscribed in the circle. When both the word mark as well as the device are in the same label, a common man will think that both represent the registered trade mark and as such the claim of the appellant that he is the proprietor of the registered word mark as well as the device of Maharaja is incorrect and as such, the claim is in contravention of Section 107(1) of the Act. The learned Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks also clearly found that the appellant has made a false claim in respect of the unregistered trade mark as that of the registered one. There is absolutely no merit in the appeal.

8. The impugned order only empowers the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks to file a complaint as prescribed under Section 115 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the Judicial Magistrate. When once the complaint is filed before the Judicial Magistrate, it is open to the appellant to take appropriate defence. The finding in the impugned order is only a preliminary one in order to lay a complaint under Section 115 of the said Act and as such, the rights of the appellant have not been affected. There is absolutely no need to interfere with the findings of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that any such issue was raised before the Assistant Registrar on behalf of the appellant. For the first time, it is being raised before this Appellate Board. Here again, we are unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. Under the Trade Marks Act, a false representation with regard to the unregistered trade mark as that of a registered one is an offence. With respect to false evidence in a Court of Law, the I.P.C. and the Cr.P.C. prescribe certain procedures to be followed to initiate proceedings against the person who gave false evidence. That is a separate proceeding and when two different enactments make the commissions as distinct crime, each has to be considered separately and both cannot be combined together. Hence, we do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant. We are of the view that the O.A. is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed.