[S.3(2) Trademarks Act] Associate Managers In Trademark Registry Not Empowered To Pass Quasi-Judicial Orders: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court has held that associate managers appointed under Section 3(2) of the Trademarks Act cannot pass quasi-judicial orders since they were not empowered to do so by virtue of their appointment as contractual employees.

A single bench of Justice Krishna Rao held:

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 quasi judicial orders.

Background

The bench was dealing with applications under section 91 of the Trademarks Act against impugned orders passed by associate managers, allegedly in one case where the contractual tenure of the associate manager had even expired.

While the impugned orders were passed against different parties by two separate associate managers, the court took up the cases together since they involved similar points of law.

It was stated that in one of the appeals, the order impugned was passed by the associate manager on 16th September 2023, whereas his contractual tenure had already expired on 31st March 2023.

It was argued by the appellants that under an order from 2023, only six officials belonging to the Trademark registry had been given wide-ranging powers such as adjudicating trademark applications, passing reasoned orders, conducting hearings etc., but that none of these powers had been assigned to associate managers.

The appellants also furnished a notification from 2011 wherein the hierarchy of each post at the Trademark registry was notified and submitted that there was no mention of a post of associate manager.

Court's decision

Upon hearing the parties, the Court looked at Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Trademarks Act. It was stated that officers who are appointed to the trademarks registry by the centre to assist the registrar, must only undertake actions which are authorised by the registrar themselves.

The Court took note of a notification furnished by the appellants from 2021, which invited applications for appointment of "hearing officers" on a contractual basis, and that subsequently both of the associate managers whose orders have been impugned, had been hired.

The Court also noted that the trademarks registry's head offices, including the one in Kolkata, were authorised to utilise the services of contractual personnel deployed through the help of the Quality Council of India.

However, it held that hiring personnel under Section 3(2) of the Trademark Act would entail that those hired would be under the control and direction of the registrar, whereas the quasi-judicial functions being performed by them were completely independent, and not under any control of the registrar or any other party.

It was held that under Section 3(2) the powers which could be extended were administrative in nature and not quasi-judicial, thus associate managers appointed under Section 3(2) could not be vested with such power.

In terms of the case, the Court concluded that neither associate manager had the power to pass the impugned orders and quashed them while remanding the matter back to the Registrar of Trademarks for fresh decisions by a competent officer.

Case: Visa International Ltd. v Visa International Service Association & Anr.

Case No: IPDTMA No. 82 of 2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 182

Click here to read order