Dismissed

Bellywear v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Apr 2019WP/3330/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ relief under Article 226 against trademark registration. Court noted statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was available. Citing Cipla Ltd., Court held it would not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction since statutory remedy existed. Petition and notice dismissed; remedy kept open.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and notice of motion disposed of. Remedy of statutory appeal kept open.

Bellywear Vs Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

3330-18-WP-906=.doc

¶2

Uday S. Jagtap

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3330 OF 2018 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 511 OF 2018 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3330 OF 2018

M/s. Bellywear

.. Petitioner

v/s.

Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Hasmit Trivedi a/w Ms. Dipali Sheth, Ms. Priya Pandey i/b Eternity Legal for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Girish Paryani for the respondents

¶12

CORAM : A.S. OKA &

¶13

M.S. SANKLECHA, J.J.

¶14

DATED : 2^nd APRIL, 2019

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The learned

¶17

Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that a remedy of statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 is available to the petitioner. However, he relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of Cipla Ltd. Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks &

¶18

Anr.¹ We have perused the said judgment. In the facts of the case,

¶19

2014 (2) Mh.L.J. 315

1 of 2

3330-18-WP-906=.doc

Uday S. Jagtap

this Court held that though the remedy of appeal was available, it was necessary to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶24

The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are cases where the appeals have remained pending for a period of 4 years before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, the remedy is not efficacious. We do not agree. Due to huge filing and pendency in this Court, writ petitions are pending even for 15 years and more.

¶25

Considering the availability of an efficacious remedy under the statute, we decline to entertain this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶26

Petition is accordingly disposed of. The remedy of the petitioner is kept open.

¶27

In view of disposal of the petition, the Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is also disposed of.

¶28

(M.S. SANKLECHA, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

¶29

2 of 2

Bellywear v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bellywear v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise Vs U.S.V. Ltd.

Responsive Industries Ltd. (Unit-Ii) Vs the Commissioner of Cgst and Central Excise, Palghar

Om-Sai Bamanwada Kabir Nagar Co-Operative Sanstha through the Secretary and Anr. Vs the Deputy Collector (E/R), Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Ramnaresh Mourya through Constituted Attorney Kuber Mourya Vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader and 6 Ors.

Rajiv Purushothaman Kutty Vs Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs and Anr.

Fardoon Rustom Afagh and Ors. Vs Rockford Structures Private Limited and Ors.