GROVER MECHANICAL WORKS (REGD. ) v. BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WORKS
2005-01-17
C.K.THAKKER, RUMA PAL
body2005
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. There appears to be some dispute as to whether the appellants counsel had conceded that her client would not be relying upon Section 12(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"). Since the issue has been categorically raised before the Registrar of trade marks who has decided the issue against the appellant, we are of the view that it would be more appropriate if the Appellate Authority applies its mind to the dispute and records a finding on the merits of the appellants appeal only insofar as Section 12(3) of the Act is concerned. 3. As far as the remaining disputes are concerned we were entirely satisfied at the time of issuance of notice that the decision of the High Court rejecting the appeal on all other grounds was justified. The notice was, accordingly, issued limited to the question of "concession". 4. It has been brought to our notice that since the passing of the High Courts decision, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has effectively resulted in all matters being transferred from the High Court to the Appellate Board constituted under that Act. Accordingly, we direct the Appellate Board to consider the appeal of the appellant restricted to the issue of Section 12(3) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. 5. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.