In the case of Sachdeva &
Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd v Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, a
miscellaneous petition was filed by the Respondent No.2/Petitioner,
under Order 47 Rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Code(CPC) read with
Section 161 of the CPC, seeking for dismissal of the appeal (filed
by Sachdeva & Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd
The Respondent/Petitioner filed the
said miscellaneous petition on the following grounds:
that the appeal is not maintainable either in law or on the
facts of the case, as, the well settled proposition of law is that
the order rejecting the review petition is not appealable.
that the opposition proceedings appealed against was by M/s
Sachdeva and Sons, whereas, the appeal had been filed by M/s
Sachdeva and Sons Industries Pvt. Ltd.
The appellant/respondent in their
reply stated that the miscellaneous petition was baseless and wrong
and that the provisions of Order 47 Rule 7(1) of the CPC was not
operative in this case.
The Circuit Bench Sitting at Delhi
of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai, began, first
with the ground as to whether an appeal is maintainable as against
an order in the Review Petition. It was pointed out that the order
passed in a review petition is not appealable as per the provisions
of Order 47 Rule 7(1) of the CPC. In the present matter before the
Board, it was stated that the provisions of the Trademarks Act were
to be taken into consideration for deciding the issue. The relevant
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 91 is as follows:
"91. Appeals to
Appellate Board- (A) Any person aggrieved by an
order or decision of the Registrar under This Act, or the rules
made thereunder may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Board within
three months from the date on which the order or decision sought to
be appealed against is communicated to such person preferring
The Board opined that on a plain
reading of the above-mentioned provision, it was clear that an
appeal can be preferred by any person aggrieved by an order or
decision of the Registrar within three months from the date on
which the order was communicated. Thus, based on the same, any
order or decision is appealable and thus the present appeal was
maintainable. The Board further opined that even though it was not
bound by the provisions of the CPC, however in the interest of
natural justice and as per the provisions of the Act, it was of the
opinion that the appeal was maintainable.
With regard to the second issue,
i.e. the mis-match in the cause title, the Board was of the opinion
that this was an issue which should have been raised by the
Registry of the Board at the time of the numbering of the appeal
and in the present case it had not been done by the Registry. In
such a circumstance therefore, the Board stated, that the litigant
should not be penalized for no fault on their part. Thus, in this
light, the respondent/appellant was directed to file necessary
miscellaneous petition with the supporting documents, if any, for
the mis-match of the cause title within a period of three weeks
form the receipt of this particular order. Accordingly, the present
miscellaneous petition was dismissed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).