REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS Versus WALTER RAU NEUSSER 01 UND FETT AG

ORDER

S.A. NUSRAT, J. --The respondent applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks on 12-6-1983 for registration of its trade mark CHOVETINE. After examination of the application, a show-cause notice dated 25-1-1984 was issued to the respondent by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, petitioner No.2 herein, calling upon to furnish some information. After receipt of reply to the show-cause notice, the Examiner, by his order dated 19-9-1984. refused to register the trade mark leaving, however, it open to the respondent to file fresh application for, registration of the same. This order was challenged by the respondent in appeal before the Sind High Court, which was allowed as per impugned judgment on the ground that the Examiner had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 19-9-1984 because the Registrar could not be empowered under subsection (2-B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, to delegate his quasi-judicial power of dealing with the registration of trade marks, to any officer other than the Deputy Registrar.

2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Central Government had, by notification dated 9-5-1951 in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (2-B) of section 4 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, authorised the Registrar of Trade Marks to delegate any particular functions of the Registrar to an officer other than the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. According to the learned counsel, the words 'any particular functions of the Registrar' appearing in subsection (2-B), were wide enough to cover even quasi- judicial powers of dealing with the applications for registration of trade marks by the Examiner. The learned counsel invited our attention to a specific order passed in this behalf by the Registrar on 19-5-1984 which reads as under:-

"Mr. Shamsul Haq to give hearing and decide."

The learned counsel further invited our attention to a decision of the High Court of West Pakistan Karachi Bench, reported as Haji Abdul Rahim v. Abdul Wahid P L D 1970 Kar.537 representing the contrary view.

3. The above contention raised in the case, requires examination. Besides the conflict of opinion existing in the same High Court also requires resolution. Leave is accordingly granted. The appeal will be heard on the present record.

S. Q./R-35/S Leave granted.