Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
United Spirits Limited & Anr vs The Registrar Of Trademarks & Ors on 4 July, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1
In The High Court At Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.
W.P. No. 10521 (W) of 2011
United Spirits Limited & Anr.
v.
The Registrar of Trademarks & Ors.
Mr. Jishnu Saha
Mr. Ajay Gaggar
Mr. Sushanta Basu
Mr. Vikram Wadhera
... for the petitioners.
Mr. S.K.Kapoor
Mr. A.Roy
Ms. R. Sen
Mr. Siddhartha Sharma
Mr. Nirmalya Dasgupta
... for the second respondent.
Heard on: July 4, 2011.
Order on: July 4, 2011.
The Court: Mr. Saha appearing for the petitioners in this art.226 petition dated June 27,2011 has submitted that the petitioners are actually aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dated June 22,2011 (at p.174) directing the petitioners to supply copy of their miscellaneous petition dated November 30,2011 with statement of case and other supporting documents filed therewith to "M/s. Inttl Advocare, New Delhi".
According to Mr. Saha, in the pending proceedings initiated on the basis of the petitioners' two applications both dated April 26, 2010 seeking restoration of a trade mark that was removed and renewal of the trade mark, there is no scope for entertaining any objection of any third party.
Over the course of hearing Mr. Saha has submitted that in view of the questions of law involved in the matter pending before the authority the petitioners need an order directing expeditious disposal of the proceedings by the authority. He has said that the petitioners are ready and willing to argue all points before the authority.
2Mr. Kapoor appearing for the private respondent and taking the point of maintainability has said that July 11,2011 has already been fixed by the authority for hearing the matter; and that in view of the provisions of s. 91of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the petitioners' remedy, if any, was before the appellate board.
In view of the above-noted submission, I think it is not necessary to decide in this case whether in view of the provisions of s.91 of the Trade Marks Act,1999 raising the questions raising which this petition has been brought the petitioners can approach the High Court under art.226.
In my opinion, the petition should be disposed of directing the authority to dispose of the pending proceedings the next hearing day or as soon thereafter as possible. Mr. Kapoor has said that the private respondent has already submitted written objection, and that the private respondent has no intention to delay disposal of the proceedings.
For these reasons, I dispose of the petition saying and ordering as follows. The question of maintainability of this petition has not been decided. The authority before whom the proceedings initiated by the petitioners are pending shall dispose of them on July 11, 2011, i.e. the next date of hearing or as soon thereafter as possible. No costs. Certified xerox.
sh ( Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J )