Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Pranabkumar Banerjee vs Registrar Of Trademarks Office on 26 February, 2024

                                    $~2
                                    *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    +           C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 14/2024, I.A. 3734/2024, I.A. 3735/2024 &
                                                I.A. 3736/2024

                                                PRANABKUMAR BANERJEE                ..... Appellant
                                                           Through: Ms. Kangan Roda and Mr. Sarthak
                                                                    Sharma, Advs.
                                                           versus

                                                REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS OFFICE           ..... Respondent
                                                              Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar,
                                                                       CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra,
                                                                       Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday and
                                                                       Mr. Krishnan V., Advs.
                                                CORAM:
                                                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
                                                                                      ORDER

% 26.02.2024

1. Counsel for the appellant has placed certain submissions in support of their contention that even though the trademark is registered by the Office of the Registrar of Trademarks at Mumbai, and the appellant is also situated in State of Maharashtra, the Delhi High Court will have jurisdiction in a Section 91 appeal against refusal of registrations. In support of this, she has pointed out to Section 2(1)(y), Section 2(2)(e) and Section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("the Act").

2. In response, however, Mr. Vaidyanathan, CGSC has pointed to Rule 3, 4, 5 and 115 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 ("the Rules") read with Section 18(3) and Section 5(3) of the Act.

3. Counsel for the appellant has also adverted to certain orders passed by This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/02/2024 at 21:34:12 this Court where registrations were in Mumbai. A perusal of these decisions, however, does not bear out that objection for territorial jurisdiction had been taken or was addressed by the Coordinate Benches.

4. Counsels for the parties seek further time to place their submissions on record in respect of territorial jurisdiction. The same may be filed not more than two pages before the next date of hearing after exchanging copies with the opposing parties.

5. List on 02nd April, 2024.

6. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

ANISH DAYAL, J FEBRUARY 26, 2024/MK/ig This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/02/2024 at 21:34:12