Judgment · High Court · 2022
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
In light of the same, the order is quashed and set aside
Provisions considered
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 s. 18(5)
Judgment
Operative part
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED Versus MR. DEBANJAN CHAKRABERTTY AND ANR. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHEKHAR B. SARAF Date : 3rd March, 2022. [Via video conference] Appearance: Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Sudhakar Prasad, Adv. Mr. Pradipta Bose, Adv. Mr. S. Majumder, Adv. … for the appellant Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Akash Munshi, Adv. … for the respondents The Court: This is an appeal filed against an order passed by the learned Senior Examiner of Trade Marks in relation to an application for registration of a Trade Mark. Upon perusal of the order dated February 24, 2018 and the grounds provided thereafter by an order dated April 19, 2021, I am of the view that the order passed are not speaking orders and have not properly dealt with the grounds raised by the petitioner. Mr. Ghosh relies on the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed by Justice G.S. Patel in Commercial Appeal 2 (L) No.18137 of 2021 and Commercial Appeal (L) No.18138 of 2021 (Metso Outotec Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks) to buttress his arguments. I do agree that brevity is required, however, complete lack of reasons upon which the authority has based the order cannot be accepted by this Court. In light of the same, the order is quashed and set aside. I make it clear that all points shall be kept open before the authority. The authority is directed to grant a fresh hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order in terms of Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 within a period of eight weeks from date. Accordingly, TMA/2/2022 is disposed of. RS
(SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In light of the same, the order is quashed and set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Trade Marks Act, 1999 — s. 18(5).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Calcutta High Court, on 03 Mar 2022. The bench was SHEKHAR B SARAF.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.