LexM/S. SABLE WAGHIRE & CO. & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M/S. SABLE WAGHIRE & CO. & OTHERS
v.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS
March 21, 1975
(K"K. MATHEW, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.]
9
A
B
Emblems and Narnes (Prevention of Inzproper Use) Act, 1950-Legislative
conipetence of Parliament-Sanctity of na1nes and emblen1s of international a11d
national entities-Act, if covered by ,Entries 49 and 91 of List l or by Entry
i
26 of List Tl of Schedule Vil of the' Constitution.
C
E1nblen1s and Na1nes (Prevention of Improper use) Act, 1950, Sections 3,
4 t;1nd 8-Regulation of use of e1nblen1s and ruunes_:."Clzltatrapati Shivaji'", if
· could be used as trade narne-Provisions, if suffer from the vice of excessive
delegation of legislative power-Petitioner's right under Article 19(1)(f) and
{g), if violated.
The petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 in Writ Petition No. 37 of 1970 are the
D
sole partners of petitioner No. 1 which is a registered partnership firm carrying
·OJ). the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling bid.is under the pictorial
representation ,and the trade name "Chhatrapati Shivaji Bidi".
The firm is
the sole proprietor of the Registered Trade Mark No. 12549 in respect of
the pictorial representation of the picture of "Chhatrapati Shivaji" and of the
Registered ·Trade Mark No. 12550 in respect of the trade name "Chhatrapati
Shivaji" registered in the Registry of Trade Marks, Bomba~. The petitioner
in Wr.it Petition No. 38 of 1970 supporting the petitioners in Writ Petition
E
No. 37 of 1970 has submitted the additional petition claiming the same
re!iefs. The petitioner in \Vrit Petition No. 38 of 1970 (the company) has
,.iso been impleaded as respondent no. 4 in Writ Petition No. 37 of 1970. By
a declaration dated November 25, 1938, filed with the Registrar of Assurances
at Bombay, petitioner no. 2 obtained protection for the user of the said pictorial
representation of "Chhatrapati Shivaji" and for the use of the said trade name
-as the exclusive proprietor thereof.
In due course under an agreement dated
June 29, 1967, the firm while retaining exclusive proprietory tights in respect
F
of the Registered Trade Marks Nos. 12549 and 12550 gave exclusive right of
UBer thereof to the company for valuable consideration.
By a notification
No. S0/1020 dated March 16, 1968, issued by the Central Government under
section 8 of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950,
and published in the Gazette of India on March 23, 1968, in item No,. 9A
in the Schedule to the Act after the words "pictorial representation of'', the
\vords "Chharapati Shivaji Maharaj or" were inserted.
On the representation
made by the petitioners, the Government ailowed the petitioners to use the
G
existing Trade Marks with the name and the pictorial representation of Chhatra-
pati Shivaji till May 31, 1969.
The Joint Registrar of Trade Marks (Respondent No. 3) by Notice No. PR/
1951 dated October 16, 1969, informed the firm that the use and registration
of the name and the pictorial representation of "Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj"
is prohibited by virtue of section 3 and 4 of the impugned Act and the
registration of the aforesaid Trade Marks Nos. 12549 and 12550 offended
H
1he provisions of section 11 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 19.58
read with section 32(b) of the said Act, and, therefore, proposed ~o recttfy
the Register by expunging therefrom the said Trade Marks unde~ sect!on. 56(4)
of the said Act.
The Registrar called upon the firm to submit ob1ections tf
any.
The petitioners applied for extension of t!me. to show ca~se before th~
Rerristrar and ultimately moved these· Writ apphcattons ch.a1leng1ng the constt-
tut'fonal validity of the Act and in particular of sections 3, 4 and 8 of the
~i\ct as well as of. the Notification of the Central Government dated March 16,
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1975) SUPP. S.C.R.
A
1968.
They have also prayed for quashing the Notice of the Registrar dated
October 16, 1969.
A rule nisi was obtained on March 2, 1970, with interim
stay preventing the Goverrunent from enforcing the provisioris of the Act. ·
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
It was contended for the petitioners : (1) The Act is void for want or
legislative competence: (ii) Sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Act suffer from the
vice of excessive delegation of legislative power; (iii) The Act has become
unv.'orkable because no rules have been framed under section 9 of the Act;
aud (iv) 'fhe Notification under section 8 was Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.