The Trade Marks Act, 1999 lays down the legal pathway for filing an appeal against orders and decisions of the Registrar of Trade Marks. Under Section 91, a person aggrieved by an order of the Registrar may file an appeal before the High Court. However, the Act does not provide for a second appeal against the decision of a Single Judge of the High Court to a Division Bench. This question relating to a second appeal was recently considered by the Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad, in M/s Raj Abhushan Bhandar vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. [R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 619 of 2026 in R/Civil Appeal/22/2023, with other connected letters patent appeals and civil appeals].
Background of the Appeals
The appeals challenged the judgment of a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court dated July 11, 2025, passed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act against the orders of the Trade Marks Registry, Ahmedabad, on February 27, 2023. The respondents raised an objection against the Letters Patent Appeals. It was contended that the Single Judge had decided an appeal from the case before the Trade Marks Registry and was exercising appellate jurisdiction instead of original jurisdiction. On that basis, the respondents argued that a further appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was not available.
The main question before the Division Bench was whether an order of a Single Judge passed in an appeal under Section 91 could be subjected to another appeal before a Division Bench under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The Gujarat High Court looked at whether these trials can be seen as an action of the High Court under original jurisdiction. It also considered whether the changes to the trademark law allowed a second appeal.
Related Laws
An important segment of the Court’s analysis was the difference between the legal framework for appeals under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 109 of the 1958 Act provided two stages of appeal before the High Court. An appeal from the Registrar could be heard by a Single Judge, and a further appeal could then be preferred to a Bench of the High Court. Section 91 of the 1999 Act does not provide a similar provision for a second appeal, while it initially provided for appeals to the Appellate Board.
Following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the reference to the Appellate Board was replaced by the High Court with effect from April 4, 2021. However, no similar provision to the second appeal available under the 1958 Act was introduced in the 1999 Act. The Court considered this change as a deciding factor to assess whether a further Letters Patent Appeal could be maintained.
Registrar’s Functions
The Court also examined the functions performed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, and noted that trademark registration starts with an application under Section 18, followed by advertisement under Section 20 and opposition and counter-statement proceedings under Section 21. The Registrar decides whether the application should be accepted or rejected after evaluating the application, opposition and supporting evidence.
The Court held that the Registrar exercises “quasi-judicial powers” and acts as a tribunal having the “trappings of a court”, although the Registrar is not a civil court per se. The Registrar evaluates the evidence, deals with claims of the parties and decides on the rights and liabilities of the parties. Therefore, when a Single Judge deals with an appeal from the Registrar under Section 91, the Single Judge is exercising appellate jurisdiction and not the original jurisdiction of the High Court.
Section 100A of the CPC
The Court also looked at Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which restricts any further appeals where an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order has already been heard and decided by a Single Judge of a High Court. The Division Bench held that the applicability of Section 100A is not limited to matters filed under the CPC. Since the Registrar has functions like a court and acts in a similar way, the appeal decision made by the Single Judge under Section 91 is not open to further appeal according to Section 100A.
Limits on a Second Appeal
The Court also looked at the changes in the trademark law framework. The Court noted that even when the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 shifted the appellate forum under Section 91 from the Appellate Board to the High Court, the Act did not provide for the second level of appeal that had existed under the earlier Act. The Gujarat High Court supported the approach taken by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Glorious Investment Ltd. vs Dunlop International Ltd. and stated that the removal of the right to appeal from the old law should be considered when interpreting the 1999 Act. The Court explained that the intent of the 1999 Act should not be ignored by interpreting the general appeal rules of the Letters Patent in a way that creates an additional level of appeal. The Court clarified its viewpoint by contrasting it with the Delhi High Court’s decision in the case of Promoshirt SM SA vs Armassuisse. This earlier case addressed whether a Letters Patent Appeal can be maintained in proceedings under Section 91.
Original Proceedings under the Trade Marks Act
The Court explained that its decision was related to appeals under Section 91 and pointed out that cases under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, which involve rectification of trademarks, can originate directly before the High Court. According to the Court, cases under Section 57 in the High Court are original cases, not appeals. Therefore, a Letters Patent Appeal can be filed against a Single Judge’s decision in these cases.
Court’s Decision
The Gujarat High Court upheld the objection and dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals as not maintainable. It was held that the Registrar of Trade Marks exercises court-like functions and acts as a tribunal, and a Single Judge deciding an appeal under Section 91 exercises appellate jurisdiction. Therefore, once an appeal against an order of the Registrar is decided by a Single Judge under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, a further Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench is not maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta