Associate Managers Of Trade Marks Registry With Administrative Powers Are Not Empowered To Pass Quasi-Judicial Orders: Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has held that an associate manager with administrative powers appointed as a Hearing Officer in the Trade Marks Registry is not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders.
The Court set aside and quashed the impugned order passed by the Associate Manager and remanded the matter for fresh consideration to the Registrar of Trade Marks. The Bench explained that a Registrar dealing with an application under the Trade Marks Act had a quasi-judicial body, while powers delegated to an Associate Manager under Section 3(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TMA) were administrative powers and thus, they were not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders.
A Single Bench of Justice Krishna Rao observed, “The Registrar dealing with an application under the Trade Marks Act is a quasi judicial and delegation of power under sub-section (2) of Section 3 is an administrative power and as such the Associate Managers appointed under sub-section 2 of Section 3 are not empowered to pass quashi judicial orders. In addition to this, on 16th September, 2023, Mr. Shraman Chattopadhyay was even not holding the Post of Associate Manger in terms of the offer of engagement dated 13th April, 2022.”
Advocate Debnath Ghosh appeared for the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Ranjan Bachawat represented the respondents.
Visa International Ltd. (appellant) had challenged the orders passed by Associate Managers of the Trademark Registry under Section 91 of the TMA in opposition proceedings related to trademark applications. The central question raised was whether the Associate Managers, who were contractually appointed, had the authority to exercise quasi-judicial powers under the TMA.
The orders in question were passed by the Associate Managers at the Trademark Registry. The appellants argued that these officials, being appointed on a contractual basis and without any statutory backing, were not competent to pass such orders. It was further argued that the TMA did not recognise the position of an Associate Manager, and thus, such officers could not exercise the powers of the Registrar, especially in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The challenge was opposed based on the submission that the Associate Managers were appointed following a public notice and a formal selection process. It was argued that the Central Government, under Section 3(2) of the TMA, had the authority to appoint officers with varying designations to discharge the functions of the Registrar.
The High Court explained, “The quasi-judicial functions are required to be performed independently and not subject to the superintendence or direction of any other person including the Registrar. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 is only intended to empower the delegation of administrative power and not quasi-judicial power.”
“The Learned Counsel for the appellants has produced the Recruitment Rules of the Trade Marks and geographical indication Registry (Registrars and Examiners), Recruitment Rules, 2011 wherein no Post of Associate Manager is available,” the Court noted.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Visa International Ltd. v. Visa International Service Association & Anr.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Debnath Ghosh, Biswaroop Mukherjee, Vaibhavi Pandey and Rahul Poddar
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Ranjan Bachawat; Advocates Soumya Ray Chowdhury, Pubali Sinha Chowdhury, Sagnik Bose and Mini Agarwal
