Date of Filing : 17.02.2020

Date of Disposal : 25.06.2021

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF JUNE-2021

PRESENT

 Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO.153/2020

Prof.P.N.Shetty

Aged about 81 years

No.204-B, Sai Radha

Palace, Brahmagiri,

Udupi-576103.                                    ..Appellant/s

(By Party In-Person)

Registrar of Trade Marks

Office of the Registrar of Trade Marks,

I.P.Building, G.S.T.Road, Guindy,

O R D E R

 Mr. KRISHNAMURTHY.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This is an Appeal filed U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Complainant/appellant herein aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.01.2020 passed by Udupi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in C.C.No.68/2019. (for short District Commission).
2. The appellant herein raised the consumer complaint U/s.12 of CP Act, 1986 on 31.12.2019, wherein sought for the relief with regard to renewal of his trademarks as he has sent Rs.80,000/- and sought for issuance of renewal certificate in his favour or in the alternative to return the amount of Rs.80,000/- along with interest @ 15 % p.a. from 01.01.2019 besides the award of compensation.
3. The District Commission, before the Complainant could be receive for an enquiry, in appreciation of contents of the complaint and documents, followed by the principles enunciated in the decision M/s.Laxmi Engineering Works v/s PSG Industrial Institute in (1995) 3 SCC 583 held, complaint is not at all maintainable under CP Act, 1986, thereby proceed to dismiss the complaint at the stage of admission itself.
4. Now, the aggrieved Complainant preferred this appeal contending that, trademarks are neither products nor items obtained for resale. They are registered names for use exclusively by their owners. As the trademarks obtained by the Complainant were registered by the Registrar of Trademarks were for a consideration, as such he is a consumer as defined U/s.2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986 and further registration of the trademarks by the Registrar of Trademarks was a service as defined U/s.2(1)(o) of the said Act, and for non-issuance of the renewal certificate pursuance to receipt of Rs.80,000/- from him amounts to deficiency as defined U/s.2(1)(g) of the said Act. In this regard, now the Commission to examine, whether such contention would be tenable to enter in to the complaint raised U/s.12 of the CP Act, 1986 before the District Commission.
5. The OP/Respondent is arrayed as ‘Registrar of Trademarks’, Office of the Registrar of Trademarks, I.P.Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai-600032.
6. No doubt, the Registration of Trademarks is followed for certain period of time, according to the Complainant/appellant herein is for ten years, which has to be renewed pursuant to his application for renewal of eight trade marks for which he has paid Rs.10,000/- each in all he has sent Rs.80,000/- to the OP towards renewal of the trademarks registered in his name and he sought for a direction to the OP under CP Act from the Commission for renewal of the trademarks which cannot be examined either by the District Commission or by this Commission under CP Act, 1986, since an appeal lies to the appellate tribunal as held by full bench in 1955 AIR 558 (SC) in the case of The Registrar of Trade Marks vs. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., decided on 15.04.1955 “the  exercise of the power conferred on the Registrar by Sec.13 of the Trade Marks Act is always a matter of discretion to  be  exercised,  not capriciously  or  arbitrarily  but, according to sound principles laid down for the exercise of all judicial discretion.” It is therefore, if the Complainant/appellant’s trademarks were not renewed as alleged in his complaint has to avail remedies under the said Act before the appellant authority which provides for deciding such issues. In such view of the matter, the contention of the Complainant that the Commission below has failed to perceive his complaint in right perception could not be acceptable at all. Even if he is contending trademarks neither products nor items obtained for resale and they are names registered for use exclusively by their owners does not fit in to Sec.2(1)(d), Sec.2(1)(o) and Sec.2(1)(g) of the CP Act, 1986. It is therefore, the Commission below has rightly concluded to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable to avoid further delay in order to facilitate the Complainant/appellant herein to approach proper authority for renewal of his trademarks said to have been registered in his name as stated in his complaint which cannot be interfered in this appeal. Accordingly, we proceed to dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits with no order as to cost.

7. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.

Lady Member                           Judicial Member

*NSG*