LAWS(CAL)-2013-7-129

STADMED PRIVATE LTD Vs. INTELLECUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD

Decided On July 24, 2013
STADMED PRIVATE LTD Appellant
V/S
Intellecual Property Appellate Board Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra-Court appeal has been preferred questioning the sustainability of the judgment and order dated 6th June, 2012 dismissing the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners in the writ petition had questioned the order passed by a Circuit Bench of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board at Mumbai on 4th August, 2006 in which the order dated 24th March, 2003 passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks was questioned. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board has set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai passed on 24th March, 2003. The appeal has been allowed.

(2.) The legality of the aforesaid order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board had been questioned in the writ application filed before the Single Bench. The Single Bench has held that it has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition merely by the fact that the order was served in Calcutta. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The writ petition ought to have been preferred in the High Court at Mumbai. Aggrieved thereby, the intra Court appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Ms. Mousumi Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel for the appellants appearing with Shri S. K. Dutta and Shri S. Banerjee has submitted that as per Rule 21 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (Procedure) Rules, 2003, it is necessary to communicate the order. Until and unless, the order is communicated, proceedings are not complete. There can be no decision in the eye of law, as contemplated in Rule 21 of the Rules of 2003, if there is no communication. This communication forms part of bundle of facts. This constitute cause of action, as part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, this Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The writ petition has been illegally dismissed by the learned Single Bench. The learned Counsel has relied on various decisions, which will be dealt with later on.