Trademark Appeal Finality Case: Calcutta High Court Clarifies No Second Appeal

Introduction

In a case involving dismissal of an appeal under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act 1999 by a single judge of the Calcutta High Court, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court decided whether a party could file yet another appeal after losing before a single judge of the High Court. The decision touches on how special laws like the Trade Marks Act interact with general rules about appeals in civil cases. It provides clarity for businesses and lawyers dealing with trademark registrations and challenges, showing that once a single judge has heard an appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, the matter usually ends there without any further appeal to a larger bench.

Factual Background

A businessman named Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury had successfully registered a label mark that included the words “Ganraj Chhappan Bhog” along with other design elements. Another party felt this registration should not have been granted and applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks for rectification, asking the Registrar to cancel the registration. After hearing both sides, the Registrar agreed with the challenger and cancelled the trademark registration belonging to Dinesh Kumar Chowdhury. Feeling wronged, the trademark owner challenged this cancellation before the High Court.

Procedural Background

The owner first filed an appeal under the special provision in the Trade Marks Act that allows any person unhappy with the Registrar’s decision to approach the High Court. A single judge of the Intellectual Property Rights Division carefully examined the matter and dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Registrar’s decision to cancel the registration. Not satisfied even after this, the owner filed a further appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, hoping for another chance to argue his case. The other party immediately raised an objection, saying this second appeal inside the same High Court was not allowed by law. The Division Bench heard detailed arguments only on this question of whether the further appeal could even be considered.

Reasoning

The Division Bench, agreeing, focused on a key rule in the general law of civil procedure. This rule states that when a single judge of a High Court hears and decides an appeal from any original or earlier order, no further appeal can be filed against that decision, no matter what other laws or old charters of the High Court might say. The judges explained that this bar applies whenever a single judge is exercising powers as an appeal court, regardless of whether the first decision came from a regular civil court or from a special authority like the Registrar of Trade Marks.

The court noted that the Trade Marks Act allows an appeal from the registrar’s order straight to the High Court. When the legislature changed the law to send such appeals to the High Court instead of a separate board, the general rule preventing further appeals was already part of the law. The judges felt the lawmakers must have known that single-judge decisions in these matters would become final. They carefully reviewed arguments that the Registrar does not act like a full court and that special rules of the High Court might allow more appeals but concluded that the broad wording of the general rule covers these situations. The focus remains on the fact that the single judge was hearing an appeal, which triggers the prohibition on any additional appeal.

Judgements With Complete Citation Referred and Their Context Discussed

• The Division Bench placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kamal Kumar Dutta and Another vs Ruby General Hospital Ltd and Others (2006) 7 SCC 613.
• The Bench also referred to its own earlier coordinate bench ruling in Glorious Investment Ltd vs Dunlop International Ltd (2025 SCC Online Cal 8647).
• Other Supreme Court cases like Mohd Saud and Another vs Dr (Maj.) Shaikh Mahfooz (2010) 13 SCC 517 and Geeta Devi and Others vs Puran Ram Raigar and Another (2010) 9 SCC 84 were cited.

These cases reinforce that appeals are creatures of statute and can be limited by clear legal provisions.

Final Decision of Court

The Division Bench held that the further appeal before it was not maintainable in law. It dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the trademark cancellation. As a result, the Single Judge’s order upholding the Registrar’s decision to cancel the registration stands, and the matter reaches its final conclusion at that stage.

Point of Law Settled in the Case

• No second appeal is maintainable after a single judge’s decision in trademark appeals.
• General civil procedure law overrides unless expressly excluded.
• Trademark disputes must end at the single judge level after one appeal.
• Ensures faster resolution and legal certainty.

Case Details

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
 
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi