- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagatjit Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. Controller General Of Patents Designs And Trade Marks & Anr.
Factual and Procedural Background
The applications under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 39 Rule 4 Section 151 of the CPC were filed by Austin Nichols and Company Inc. seeking impleadment in a Petition and vacation of interim orders dated 31.5.2005. Austin Nichols contended that it is the holder of the trademark/label ‘Blenders Pride’ in over fifty countries, including India since 1995, and argued that it was a necessary party in the proceedings. The Petition was directed against the Trademarks Registry, which the petitioner argued did not necessitate impleading Austin Nichols, though the petitioner did not object to their impleadment. The Court ordered impleadment accordingly.
A prior writ petition (WP(C) No. 2712-13/2005) involving Austin Nichols had been disposed of with directions to the Controller General to decide issues arising from a Show Cause Notice dated 16.2.2005 issued under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which called for cancellation of the registration of the trademark under Application No. 618414 (Class 33). A subsequent Show Cause Notice dated 26.5.2005 was issued by the Trademark Registry, New Delhi, which included an order directing the return of the registration certificate and prohibition on its use, which was stayed by this Court.
The petitioner had also filed a civil suit in the District Court, Jalandhar, obtaining an injunction restraining Austin Nichols from selling Blenders Pride whisky in India. Austin Nichols filed a civil action in the Delhi High Court, with a stay application pending under Section 10 of the CPC. The Court directed that status quo be maintained until 16.11.2005 and that the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks dispose of the proceedings by that date.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Austin Nichols and Company Inc. is a necessary party to the Petition directed against the Trademarks Registry.
- The legality and propriety of the impugned order dated 26.5.2005 directing return of the trademark registration certificate and prohibiting its use.
- The appropriate procedural course for disposal of the trademark cancellation proceedings under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- The maintenance of status quo in concurrent civil proceedings relating to the trademark in different courts.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments (Austin Nichols and Company Inc.)
- Claimed to be the holder of the trademark ‘Blenders Pride’ in over fifty countries, including India since 1995.
- Asserted that the impugned order, which had its operation stayed, was in their favor and thus they were a necessary party to the Petition.
- Prayed for urgent hearing of the Writ Petition and submitted that the impugned paragraph 5 of the order was legally sound and should not be interfered with.
Petitioner's Arguments
- Contended that the Petition was directed against the Trademarks Registry, and therefore Austin Nichols was not a necessary party.
- However, conceded that the applicant could be impleaded and heard in the Petition without objection.
- Maintained that status quo should be maintained in the proceedings pending in the Delhi High Court related to the trademark dispute.
Respondents' Arguments
- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requested further time to file a Counter Affidavit.
- Submitted that final orders could be passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks or other officers in a time-bound manner without difficulty.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court acknowledged that the impugned communication dated 26.5.2005 was essentially interlocutory and that the legal propriety of this communication was better addressed before the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks or the officer entrusted with the matter. The Court found it expedient to direct the disposal of the proceedings under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by the Assistant Registrar on or before 16.11.2005, limiting the parties to one adjournment each. The Court also considered the ongoing civil litigations in different forums and directed maintenance of the status quo until that date, emphasizing the importance of orderly and time-bound resolution of the trademark dispute. The Court refrained from making any observations on the pending Original Side proceedings, noting that final orders under Section 57(4) would remain open to challenge.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is disposed of with directions for the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks to conclude the trademark cancellation proceedings by 16.11.2005.
The Court allowed impleadment of Austin Nichols in the Petition and ordered maintenance of the status quo in related civil proceedings until the specified date. The disposal does not affect the parties' rights to challenge the final orders passed under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. No new precedent was established; the decision primarily directs procedural management and interim relief pending final adjudication.
Vikramajit Sen, J.—These applications under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 39 Rule 4 Section 151 of the CPC filed by Austin Nichols and Company Inc. are for impleadment in the Petition and for vacation of interim orders dated 31.5.2005 passed in these proceedings. In brief, the contention of the applicant is that it is the holder of the trademark/label ‘Blenders Pride’ in over fifty countries and it has been in use internationally since 1973 and in India since 1995 in relation to the alcoholic beverages. The submissio is that the impugned Order, the operation of which has been stayed, is in favour of the applicant and hence it was a necessary party.
2. Mr. V.P Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the prayers in the Petition are directed against the Trademarks Registry and hence the applicant is not a necessary party. He, however, very fairly concedes that the petitioner would have no objection if the Applicant is impleaded and is heard in the Petition. Ordered accordingly.
3. So far as the stay application is concerned it shall be deemed to have been disposed of in terms of the Writ Petition itself.
WP(C) No. 10080/2005
4. Austin Nichols had previously approached this Court in WP(C) No. 2712-13/2005 which Petition was disposed of with the observation that the Controller General shall proceed to decide the issues arising out of the Show cause Notice dated 16.2.2005 as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. This Show-cause Notice dated 16.2.2005 was issued by the Registry of Trademarks, Mumbai calling upon the petitioner to show cause under Section 57(4) of the Trademark Act, 1999 as to why the registration under Application No. 618414 under Class 33 should not be cancelled. Reply was to be filed with the Registry of Trademarks within thirty days. However, by a second show cause dated 26.5.2005, issued by the Trademark Registry, New Delhi which has been impugned on the writ petition, the following Order has been passed by Assistant Registrar of Trademarks:
(5) Meanwhile, in the light of the pendency of the above proceedings under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, you are directed to return the above registration certificate to the undersigned forthwith. You are further directed not to use the said certificate of registration in respect of the above mentioned trade mark in any manner for any purpose and in any proceedings since this certificate has inadvertently been issued to you.
5. It is the above Order which has been stayed by this Court.
6. Mr. Kalra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 prays for further time to file Counter Affidavit. He, however, submits that there should be no difficulty in passing final orders by the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks or any other officer to whom the matter is entrusted, in a time-bound period.
7. Mr. Sudhir Chandra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Austin Nichols has prayed for an urgent hearing of the Writ Petition and it is his submission that the impugned paragraph 5, reproduced above, is legally sound and ought not to be interfered with.
8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties in some detail I am of the view that it would be idle for this Court to go into the legal propriety of the Communication dated 26.5.2005 since it is essentially in the nature of an interlocutory arrangement. The questions which have been advanced in these proceedings would also necessarily have to be addressed before the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks or any other officer. I consider it more expedient to direct respondent No. 1 to dispose of the proceedings on or before 16.11.2005 Neither of the contesting parties shall be granted more than one adjournment.
9. It appears that the petitioner has filed a Civil Suit in the District Court, Jalandhar and has received an injunction restraining Austin Nichols from selling Blenders Pride whisky in India. Austin Nichols has filed a civil action in the High Court of Delhi in which the Petitioner has filed an application for stay of the proceedings under section 10 of the cpc. Arguments have been addressed and order is awaited. Mr. Chandra submits that till 16.11.2005 status quo should be maintained in respect of the proceedings filed by the petitioner in Jalandhar. Mr. Singh contends that this should also apply to the proceedings pending on the Original Side of this Court. In view of the pending litigation in this Court as well as in Jalandhar it is expected that the District Court at Jalandhar will consider the expediency of adjourning the proceedings to any date beyond 16.11.2005 even if the petitioner does not join in this request. Since orders are reserved in the proceedings on the Original Side of this Court, in will be inappropriate to make any observations in that regard.
10. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Needless to say that the disposal of this writ petition shall not affect the rights of the parties to assail the final orders passed under Section 57(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks.
Writ Petition disposed of.
Alert