Watkins Mayor & Co. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Bombay And ... on 30 November, 1951
• Further, the definition of 'High Court' under Article 366(14)(a) of the
Constitution of India, merely, means that a High Court could be any
High Court, located in any territory as constituted under the
Constitution of India. Further, Article 214 of the Constitution of India
is, merely a listing of all the High Courts. The broad listing of High
Courts under the Constitution of India does not automatically grant
3
2017 8 SCR 33, paragraph 53 at page 103
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023 & connected matters Page 13 of 70
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:09.02.2024
19:16:40
jurisdiction to every High Court. Even under the Trade Marks Act, 1940
(hereinafter, '1940 Act') which referred to Section 219 of the
Government of India Act, 1935 (hereinafter, 'GoI Act'), confusion
prevailed between decisions rendered by various High Courts. The
same was considered by the 'Report of Shri. Justice N. Rajagopala
Ayyangar on Trade Marks Law Revision, 1995 (Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce and Industry)' (hereinafter, '1955 Ayyangar
Committee Report'). He submits that the said Ayyangar Report, clearly
opined that this jurisdictional conflict required that 'High Court' ought
to be defined, and clarity ought to be given. As a result of this
recommendation, 'High Court' was defined in the 1958 Act under
Section 2(h), which no longer exists under the 1999 Act. To support this
submission, reference is made to paragraphs 41 to 43 of the 1955
Ayyangar Committee Report. Further, to illustrate the nature of the
conflict that led to the revision of the 1940 Act, reliance is placed on
Chamundeeswari Weaving and Trading Co., (Pte) Ltd. v. Mysore
Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.4 and Watkins Mavor & Co. v.
Registrar of Trade Marks Bombay5.