INTRODUCTION

Trademark litigation is often considered one of the most technically layered branches of intellectual property law. The complexities intensify when procedural questions intersect with substantive rights. The Calcutta High Court’s 2025 decision in the Dunlop case stands as a classic example of such an intersection—where the core legal battle transcended trademark ownership and focused instead on a procedural issue: Can a litigant file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against a Single Judge’s order delivered in an appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?The answer, as delivered by the Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Om Narayan Rai, was a firm “No”. The judgment is significant because it harmonizes decades of precedents, interprets legislative silence, and clarifies the role and nature of the Registrar of Trade Marks. This blog offers a detailed, reader-friendly, and structured analysis of this landmark ruling.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

At the heart of this case lies the trademark "DUNLOP." On July 4, 2024, Glorious Investment Limited applied for the registration of this trademark, which was initially approved by the “Deputy Registrar of Trademarks” despite opposition from Dunlop International Limited. The latter, unsatisfied with the ruling, escalated the matter to the High Court under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.On June 11, 2025, a Single Judge in the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court overturned the Registrar's decision and remanded the matter back for reconsideration, prompting Glorious Investment Limited to file an appeal challenging this remand order. The appellate proceedings raised essential questions regarding the nature of the appeal and whether it was maintainable given the statutory confines established in prior civil procedures.

CORE LEGAL ISSUES

The crux of the case revolved around a singular legal question: “Does an intra-court appeal lie to a Division Bench against a Single Judge's order in an appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, given the prohibition established under section 100A of the CPC?”

This query necessitates a deeper exploration of the statutory provisions involved, including:

·         Sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 relevant to trademark registration and appeals.

·         Section 100A of the CPC, which explicitly bars further appeals in certain civil proceedings.

Understanding the legal context surrounding these provisions is pivotal in grasping the implications of the court's ruling.

KEY ARGUMENTS PRESENTED

Respondent No. 1: Dunlop International Limited

Dunlop International Limited put forth compelling arguments emphasizing that the current proceedings were primarily a second appeal against the Single Judge's order, thereby implicating “section 100A CPC”. Key points included:

·         There is no statutory provision in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, that allows for a second appeal from an order issued under section 91.

·         Even if the Letters Patent allowed for an intra-court appeal, the overriding effect of section 100A would render such provisions ineffective.

·         The appeal from the Single Judge's order constituted a further challenge to a decision that was already appellate in nature, thus falling squarely within the prohibitions of section 100A CPC.

Respondent No. 2: Deputy Registrar of Trademarks

The Deputy Registrar echoed Dunlop's submissions, reinforcing that based on “section 97 of the Trade Marks Act”, only orders of a certain nature are appealable, emphasizing that appellate rulings like the one from the Single Judge do not fall within that category.

APPELLANT: GLORIOUS INVESTMENT LIMITED

In response, Glorious Investment Limited countered these arguments robustly:

·         Section 100A CPC pertains strictly to appeals stemming from decrees or orders within civil courts; as the Deputy Registrar does not qualify as a civil court, this section should not apply.

·         The appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act does not represent a typical civil order and thus does not invoke the restrictions of section 100A.

·         The nature of the appeal and the framework of the Intellectual Property Division's procedures allowed for the possibility of intra-court appeals per the rules set forth.

Additionally, Glorious Investment relied on precedent cases from the Delhi High Court, asserting that section 100A does not preclude intra-court appeals in trademark matters.

To know more about this, please check the link below.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The court's examination began with citing the Supreme Court's earlier judgment in “National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. Ltd.”, which shed light on the provision regarding appeals “to the High Court.” The court noted that merely granting access to the High Court implied the availability of ordinary procedural laws alongside it, including the right to further appeals unless expressly excluded. However, the introduction of “section 100A” posed a critical question: did this section alter the long-accepted practice of allowing further appeals? The court analyzed whether the intent of section 100A supported the exclusion of all further appeals or if the cases governed by specific statutes, such as the Trade Marks Act, could maintain their unique procedural routes. Ultimately, the court seemed inclined towards interpreting the issue as one of preserving or rejecting past legal interpretations in light of evolving statutory frameworks, concluding that the body of current laws must embrace change while respecting previous judicial patterns.

IMPLICATIONS FOR TRADEMARK LAW

The ruling in “Glorious Investment Limited v. Dunlop International Limited TEMPAPO – IPD 5 of 2025” holds significant implications:

Clarification of Appeal Procedures: This case highlights the need for clarity regarding the scope of appeals in trademark disputes. The distinctions between ‘original’ and ‘appellate’ orders can dramatically affect the strategies businesses adopt in defending or contesting trademarks.

·         Impact on Trademark Registration and Opposition: Future applicants for trademark registration may require further legal guidance to navigate counter-oppositions and potential appeals—fostering a more layered strategy in trademark applications.

·         Potential for Legislative Review: The discourse around intra-court appeals signals a need for legislative bodies to review the interplay between different statutes to ensure consistent legislative intent and procedural clarity in dispute resolutions.

CONCLUSION

The case of “Glorious Investment Limited v. Dunlop International Limited TEMPAPO – IPD 5 of 2025” illustrates the intricate legal tapestry surrounding trademark law, specifically regarding appeal procedures. Through this case, a fundamental question about the nature of intra-court appeals and the regulatory environment under the Trade Marks Act emerged. By exploring the arguments and judicial analysis, we gain insight into not only the implications of this case but also the broader landscape of intellectual property law. This case serves as a reminder of the dynamic nature of legal interpretation and the importance of clarity in statutory provisions, encouraging future litigants to navigate the complexities of trademark disputes with astuteness.