Author: Uroosa Shahzad
In the matter of Visa International Ltd. v. Visa International Service Association & Anr. [IPDTMA No. 82 of 2023], a Single Judge (Krishna Rao, J.) of the High Court of Calcutta vide order dated August 02, 2024, allowing a writ petition, has held that contractual staff hired in the Trade Marks Registry can only discharge administrative functions on behalf of the Registrar, and not quasi-judicial functions like issuing orders in an application.
Section 3(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”) states that “The Central Government may appoint such other officers with such designations as it thinks fit for the purpose of discharging, under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar, such functions of the Registrar under this Act as he may from time to time authorise them to discharge” The issue was whether the provision is intended solely to empower the delegation of administrative authority and not quasi-judicial power.
The Appellants argued on the ground that the Associate Managers of Trade Marks who have passed the orders in their applications were neither authorized under law nor competent to pass such order. The Respondent placed on record an officer order directing the Registrar’s functions to be delegated through the e-module of the TMR System, following the CGPDTM’s powers.
Accepting the arguments of the Appellants, the Court held that Section 3(2) of the Act is only intended to empower the delegation of administrative power and not quasi-judicial power. The Court stated that “The use of expression with such designation as it thinks fit indicates that there are no fetters or limitations with regard to designations of the officers appointed by the Central Government for the said purpose. The Central Government may appoint officers of any designation to perform the functions of the Registrar. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 prescribes the requirement that the other officers appointed to discharge the functions of the Registrar are required to function under the superintendence and direction of the Registrar. The quasi judicial functions are required to be performed independently and not subject to the superintendence or direction of any other person including the Registrar. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 is only intended to empower the delegation of administrative power and not quasi judicial power.”
Disclaimer: Views, opinions, interpretations are solely those of the author, not of the firm (ALG India Law Offices LLP) nor reflective thereof. Author submissions are not checked for plagiarism or any other aspect before being posted.
Copyright: ALG India Law Offices LLP