In a closely watched intellectual property dispute, the Calcutta High Court on Tuesday dismissed an appeal filed by Glorious Investment Limited against Dunlop International Limited. The Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Om Narayan Rai held that the appeal was "not maintainable" under the law, citing Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which prohibits second appeals within the same High Court.
The case revolved around the iconic "Dunlop" trademark, a name long associated with tyres and rubber products, whose ownership and registration rights have been under legal contention for years.
Background
The legal battle began when Glorious Investment Limited applied to register the mark “Dunlop”. The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks allowed the application in July 2024, overruling Dunlop International Limited’s objections.
Dunlop International challenged this decision before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Single Judge set aside the Registrar’s order and remanded the matter for reconsideration after giving both parties an opportunity of hearing.
Glorious Investment, aggrieved by that decision, approached the Division Bench thus giving rise to the current appeal.
Courtroom Arguments
Appearing for Dunlop International, senior advocate Debnath Ghosh argued that this was effectively a second appeal, and that Section 100A of the CPC expressly bars such appeals from an order of a Single Judge.
“No statute allows a further appeal from a Single Judge’s order in such a situation,” he submitted, relying on earlier Supreme Court judgments including Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital.
Counsel for Glorious Investment, senior advocate Jaydip Kar, countered that the Registrar of Trademarks was not a civil court, and therefore the bar under Section 100A should not apply. He cited decisions from the Delhi High Court (Promoshirt SM SA v. Armassuisse) asserting that intra-court appeals in intellectual property matters could still lie under the Letters Patent jurisdiction.
Kar emphasized that the Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules of 2023 explicitly allow such appeals to the Commercial Appellate Division, arguing that the High Court retained its constitutional power to hear them.
Court's Observations
Justice Om Narayan Rai, delivering the judgment, took the Bench through a detailed historical and statutory analysis beginning with the Trademark Act of 1940 and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act of 1958, right up to the Trade Marks Act of 1999 as amended in 2021.
The Court observed that while earlier laws expressly provided for a second appeal, Parliament had deliberately omitted that provision in the 1999 Act, thereby signalling its intention to prevent multiple appellate stages.
“It is settled law that no appeal can be preferred without there being a statutory provision for it,” Justice Rai remarked during the pronouncement.
The Bench also examined whether the Registrar of Trademarks could be said to have the “trappings of a court”, a phrase borrowed from several Supreme Court rulings. After studying Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act which empowers the Registrar to receive evidence, summon witnesses, and issue orders executable as decrees the judges concluded that the Registrar indeed functions in a quasi-judicial manner akin to a civil court.
Therefore, Section 100A’s prohibition on further appeals applied squarely.
“The Registrar acts judicially, determines rights, and exercises powers similar to those of a civil court. Consequently, the Letters Patent appeal stands barred,” the Bench held.
The Court further noted that by removing the second appellate clause from the 1958 Act while framing the 1999 Act, Parliament had “consciously excluded” a second layer of scrutiny.
“We cannot override legislative intent through interpretative elasticity,” Justice Rai observed, adding that allowing such appeals would effectively “rewrite the statute.”
Decision
Concluding the 27-page judgment, the Bench dismissed Glorious Investment Limited’s appeal as not maintainable, along with its connected interlocutory application.
"TEMPAPO-IPD 5 of 2025 is dismissed. The connected application being GA-COM 1 of 2025 also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs," the Court stated.
With that, the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that intra-court appeals under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act are barred by Section 100A of the CPC a precedent likely to affect how trademark disputes progress in High Courts across India.
Case Title: Glorious Investment Limited vs. Dunlop International Limited & Anr.
