1. This appeal, under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, is directed against the order dated 22- 3-1990 passed at Lahore by the respondent, whereby he refused to register the appellant's Application No.95492 in clause 5 for the registration of the word DENTUGEL as a Trade Mark. The facts relevant for decision of this appeal are as follows: On 20th August, 1987 the appellant moved an application at Lahore under section 14(1) of the said Act, for the registration of the above Trade Mark. On 21-6-1988, the respondent issued show-cause notice, under section 6(1)(d) of the Act, as to why the application for registration should not be refused as the said Trade Mark was purely descriptive of the goods. The reply of show-cause notice was considered . And hearing was held at Lahore on 28-12-1989. After hearing the impugned order was passed at Lahore. It is the case of appellant that protest letter was sent to the respondent on 27-3-1090, but the same was not replied. It is alleged that, through covering letter dated 9-9-1990 the copy of impugned order was supplied to the appellant, which was received on 17-9-1990.
2. Mrs. Navin Merchant learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this appeal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. She argued that, in this particular case, the application for registration of Trade Mark was filed at Lahore, show-cause notice was disposed of at Lahore, and the final order was also passed at Lahore, therefore, the Court having jurisdiction in the matter is the High Court at Lahore. In support of above contention, she cited (1) AIR 1959 Madras 359, Chunulal Seetar'ant v. G.S. Muthiah and Brother and others. (2)
3. Satyarayana Khubchand Carva and others v. Ramchander Laxmi Narayan Karva, High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh I. (3) Saleem Cigarettes Industries Ltd. v. The Examiner of Trade Marks and 2 others PLD 1989 Peshawar 197. (4) Reckitt & Colman (U.K.) PLC v. Sheikh Soap Factory and another, PLD 1993 Supreme Court 129. In Chunulal Sectaram's case, the Office of Registrar of Trade Mark wets at Bombay and the Register of Trade Marks was maintained there in which the rectification was made. On this basis, it was held that the High Court having jurisdiction in the matter was the High Court at Bombay. In Satanaryana Khubchand Carva's case, after referring to the decisions reported in A LIR 1959 Mad. 359, (2) AIR 1962 Mad 214, (3) AIR 1966 Andhra Pradesh 102 L it was held that, for the purpose of jurisdiction, the High Court having jurisdiction under the Act shall be the High Court within limits of whose appellate jurisdiction the Office of the Trade Mark Registry is situate. It was also held that the fact that the business in respect of the Trade Mark in question was being carried out at Hyderabad, and the parties lived at Hyderabad would not make any difference to the legal position that it was the High Court at Madras, which had jurisdiction in the matter. In Saleem Cigarettes Industries Ltd.'s case it was held that only the High Court would have jurisdiction to hear the appeal within whose territorial limits the order impugned in appeal was made. In Reckitt & Colman's case, Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan while dealing this point observed as follows:-- "As against this learned counsel for the respondents argued before us that Registrar, Trade Marks has jurisdiction all over Pakistan and also he has an office set up in Lahore, therefore, High Court at Lahore also had jurisdiction. When asked categorically whether proceedings in respect of trade mark were held at Karachi or at Lahore, the reply was that proceedings took place at Karachi and order passed by the Registrar and impugned in the appeal was also passed at Karachi. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondents cited before us the case of Al-Iblagh Limited v. Copyright Board, Karachi and others 1985 SCM R 758. It is held in the reported case that any order passed by the Board or proceedings taken by it in relation to any person in any of the for Provinces in Pakistan gives jurisdiction to the High Court of the Province in whose territory such person resides. Reported case is distinguishable for the reason that language used in section 77 of the Copyright Ordinance, 1962 pertaining to appeals against the order of the Board is worded differently from section 76 of the Trade Marks Act of 1940 inasmuch as in section 77 of the Copyright Ordinance it is specifically mentioned that appeal would lie to the High Court within whose jurisdiction appellant actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. We, therefore, approve the view expressed in the case of Abdul Ghani Ahmad (supra) and hold that in the instant case appeal was competent before High Court of Sindh at Karachi, as order of the Registrar, Trade Marks impugned in the appeal was passed at Karachi and proceedings also took place at Karachi."
4. Coming back to the facts of the instant case it is noted that material facts on the point of territorial jurisdiction are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact "hat application for registration of Trade Mark was filed at Lahore, preliminary hearing of the matter was done at Lahore and the final order was passed at Lahore. Therefore, the proper Court for the purpose of jurisdiction is the High Court at Lahore. This is for the reason that the order which can be regarded to have given a cause of action to the appellants, was passed at Lahore. Mere fact that copy of impugned order was received at Karachi would not confer jurisdiction to this Court. The preliminary objection is upheld.
5. The Memo of Appeal, after keeping its photostat copy on record, be returned to the appellant for its presentation to the Court of competent jurisdiction. No costs.