Court Remands Matter for Reconsideration, Emphasizes Principles of Natural Justice and Reasoned Orders
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order by the Registrar of Trade Marks which had removed the trademark 'Makhan Fish Corner' from the register. The case was brought before the court by Malkit Singh, proprietor of the renowned food service business under the contested mark, against the Registrar of Trade Marks and M/s Makhan Fish Co.
Justice Tejas Karia presided over the appeal, highlighting several procedural lapses and violations of natural justice in the Registrar’s original decision. The court found that the Registrar failed to consider crucial evidence provided by Malkit Singh regarding his prior use of the trademark since 1962. This evidence included affidavits, Chartered Accountant certificates, and business expansion documents dating back to 2001, which were overlooked in the Registrar’s findings.
The judgment emphasized the necessity for a reasoned and speaking order in trademark rectification proceedings, noting that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable due to its lack of analysis and failure to differentiate between classes of goods and services. Malkit Singh's business operates under Class 43 (food, drink, and restaurant services), while the opposing party, M/s Makhan Fish Co., operates under Classes 29 and 35 (fish products and commission agency). The court asserted the need for an examination of potential confusion among consumers, which was absent in the Registrar’s order.
Moreover, the court addressed the doctrine of legitimate expectation, underscoring the duty of statutory bodies to conduct proceedings transparently and fairly. The Registrar's order was criticized for its cryptic nature, depriving the appellant of understanding the rationale behind the decision and hindering meaningful appellate scrutiny.
Justice Karia remanded the matter back to the Registrar for a fresh decision, mandating a comprehensive evaluation of all evidence and adherence to natural justice principles. The Registrar is directed to reconsider the case within six months, providing a fair hearing to both parties without being influenced by prior judgments.
This ruling reinforces the legal framework governing trademark rectification, advocating for meticulous consideration of evidence and clear articulation of reasons in judicial orders. The case sets a precedent for future trademark disputes, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and detailed reasoning in administrative decisions.
Bottom Line:
A reasoned and speaking order is essential in trademark rectification proceedings to comply with natural justice principles. The failure to consider evidence, differentiate between classes of goods/services, and provide reasoning renders the decision unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 57(1), 58
