THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS versus ASHOK CHANDRA RAKHIT LTD.

Citation: [1955] 2 S.C.R. 252 · Decided: 15-04-1955 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1955 
Shh•a Jute 
Baling ltd. 
v. 
Hindley and 
Co. Lrd. 
Mukherjea C. J. 
1955 
April 15 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1955] 
the admission of the appeal to be served upon the 
respondents as soon as the security for costs and other 
deposits of money were made by the appellants. This 
was not done as the procedure to be followed was not 
correctly appreciated. It is· true that the appellants 
remained idle for a considerable oeriod of time even 
after they furnished 
security ancf did not take any 
steps towards printing of the 
record. 
But as there 
was an initial irregularity in the matter of issuing a 
notice under Order XXXIJ, rule 9 of the Original Side 
Rules of the Calcutta High Court, we are unable to 
hold that the appellants were guilty of any !aches for 
which the special leave deserves to be rescinded. The 
resnlt is that the application of the respondents is 
dismissed. The Registrar, Original Side of the Calcutta 
High Court, will now issue a notice under Order 
XXXrI. rule 9 of the Original Side Rules and prompt 
steps should be taken by the appellants towards 
nrinting and transmission of the record to this Court. 
We make no order as to costs of this application. 
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS 
v. 
ASHOK CHANDRA RAKHIT LTD. 
[ s. R. DAS, BHAGWATI and SINHA JJ.] 
The Trade Marks Act 1940 (Act V of 1940), s. 13--Meanin}? 
and scope of-Registration subiect to disclaimer-S. 76-Appeal 
to the High Court-When can the Hiflh Court interfere-Registrar, 
discretion of-Proper approach in such a case. 
The exercise of the power conferred on the Registrar by s. 13 
of the Trade Marks Act is alwavs a matter of discretion to be 
exercised, not capriciously or arbitrarilv but, according to sound 
principles laid down for the exercise of all judicial discretion. 
The existence of the two jurisdictional facts referred to in 
clauses (a) and lb) of s. 13 and the finding that the trade mark con-
tains pans or matters to the: exclusive use of which the proorietor 
is not entitled does not condude the matter and it must further 
be cmblished that some good !?l'OUnd exists for the imposition of 
n disclaimer and the tribunal will exercise the discretionary power 
for good cause shown. 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
253 
Por the prorcr understanding and carrying into effect the pro-
visions of s. 13 it is ncc.:ssary to bear in mind that rhe section con-
fides a discretionuy power in the 'tribunal' which by vir•ue of s. 
2( n) means the Registrar or, as the case may be, the Court before 
which the proceeding con<·crned is pending. 
Assuming but not de-
ciding that in dealing with an appeal under s. 76 of the Act from the 
dc~·isions of the Registrar under s. 13 of the Act the High Court is 
not fettered by reason of the Registrar, on the hearing before him, 
h:iving exercised his discretion and the High Court may exercise its 
own discretion, just as it could if rhe proceedings had been -taken 
initially before it, it must be remembered that it is the Registrar to 
whom in the first instance is committed the discretionary 
power. 
If that au•hority has exercised his discretion in good faith and not in 
violation of any Jaw such exercise of discretion should not be inter-
fered wi1h by the High Court merely on the ground that, in the 
opinion of th::: High Court it could have been exercised differently or 
even that the High Court would have exercised it differently, had the 
matter been brought before it in the first instance. The proper 
approach in such a c~se is for the High Court to consider whether 
'lie Regi~trar llas really gonl' so irrong as to make it nrcessary to 
inter/ ere with his discretion. 
The real purpose of requiring a disclaimer is to define the rights 
of the proprietor under registration so as to minimise, even if it 
•annot wholly eliminate, the possibility of extravagant and unauth-
orised claims being made on the score of registration of the trade 
marks. 
The proviso to s. 13 preserves intact any right which the pro-
prietor may otherwise under any other law have in relation to the 
mark or any part thereof. 
The disclaimer is only for the purposes 
of the Act. 
It does not affect the rights of the proprietor except 
.~uch as arise out of registration. That is to say, the special advan-
tages which the Act gives to the proprietor by reason of the regis-
tration of his trade mark do not extend to the parts or matters 
which he disclaims. 
Held, that considering all the circumstances of the pres

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.