Case: Satnam Overseas Vs. Sant Ram &amp; Co

The appellant herein preferred an application before the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi for rectification of entry in respect of Registered Trade Markin Class 30 registered in the name of Respondent No.1 on the ground of non-usage for a period in excess of five years. The application was allowed by the Registrar vide order dated 18.6.1992 and the entry in respect of registered trademark 274006 in Class 30 registered in the names of Respondent No.1 was modified by amending the specification of goods to read asfor sale in the cities of Faizabad, Maunath Bhanjan, Jaunpur, Shahganj and Agra in the State of UttarNo.1 therein then filed an application for review of the order dated 18.6.1992 which was partly allowed vide order dated 15.02.1993 by Assistant Registrar, adding the town of Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh, in which Respondent No.1 was allowed to use his trademark. Consequently Respondent No.1 was allowed to use the trademarkin six cities in the State of Uttar Pradesh.3. Respondent No.1 then filed CMM No.303 of 2003 before Delhi High Court against the rectification and review order dated 18.06.1992 and 15.2.1993 respectively passed by the Assistant Registrar of trademarks restricting the use of trademark only in few cities of the State of Uttar Pradesh. Respondent No.1 also filed CMM No.313 of 1996 against the grant of trademark registration of all kinds of rice for the purpose of export in favour of the appellant. Respondent No.1 also preferred CMM No.327 of 1993 against the grant of trademark registration in favour of the appellant throughout India.4. All the above-mentioned applications were clubbed together and an order was passed by the learned Single Judge on 11.09.2003 whereby CMM No.303 of 1993 was allowed to the extent of permitting the Respondent to use trademark for the entire state of Uttar Pradesh. CMM No.313 of 1996 was also partly allowed. CMM No.327 of 1993 was dismissed.5. The appellant then preferred OCJA No.5 of 2003 before the Division Bench against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CMM No.313 of 1996 and OCJA No.6 was preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in CMM No.303 of 1993. The appellant, alleging violation of the order passed by the Division Bench on 10.11.2003, staying the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, filed a Contempt Application No.928 of 2006. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court passed a common order on 15.05.2007 upholding all the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.6. Appellant herein then preferred three Special Leave Petitions. SLP (C) NO.15496 of 2007 was preferred against the order in OCJA No.6 of 2003, SLP(C) No.18213 of 2007 was preferred against the order in OCJA No.5 of 2003 and SLP(C) No.18212 of 2007 was preferred against the order in Contempt Application No.928 of 2006.

Court's reasoning:
We find, in this case on facts, the Assistant Registrar of Trademarks, after perusing the various documents found that there was no non-user of the trademarkin respect of rice in class 30 for five years and one month prior to the date of the rectification application. That finding is purely a question of fact, which was affirmed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench. The Division Bench has also found no error in the inclusion of another District also for selling the rice and later extending the benefit of the trademark to the respondents to the whole State of Uttar Pradesh. Cogent reasons have been stated for extending the trademark so far as the respondents are concerned in the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was pointed out that restricting the trademark to few cities would create lot of complications and litigations as to the exact boundary of a particular city or District. It will also be impossible for the respondents to ensure that its products are not sold to retailers outside the six cities. Putting geographical restrictions was rightly held to be unjust. In our view, reasons stated above cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse calling for interference by this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.