' This is first appeal under the Trade Marks Act, against order, dated 25-12-1989 of the Registrar of Trade Marks.
2. The trademarks of the appellant is already registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks since 1942. For registration of certain additional mark 'ICI', the appellant submitted a fresh application which in point of fact was an extension of the relief as had already been granted to the appellant.
The application was dismissed; vide impugned order, on the ground that the appellant would have to fulfil the additional qualifications for the registration.
3. The main grievance of the appellant is that the appellants were not heard, the order was passed on a public holiday, the Registrar did not attend to the factors as required under the law and that reasons, have not been given to repel the plea raised by the appellant. It is also the ground of the appellant that the trademarks of the appellant in Urdu word ICI and the Sindhi ICI, has already been registered by granting extension of the distinguishing features in the existing trademarks but this has been refused on the subsequent application when the applicant requested for registration of ICI word in English.
4. The order was communicated to the appellants on 26-3-1990. Appellants applied for the grounds of the decision, in terms of Rule 25 of Trade Marks Rules, 1963 which was supplied on 5-12- 1991 and thereafter, this appeal was filed. Under Rule 25(3) the date of the decision of the order of the Registrar would be the date on which the copy of grounds of decision are supplied to the appellants.
5. In this view of the matter this appeal is within time and the office objection as to the limitation is repelled.
6. As regard the main case it is observed that 25-12-1991 was a public holiday and obviously the office of respondent was closed. This being, so the question of hearing the appellant on that day or rendering decision on a public holiday would not arise. The fact that the order is stated, to have been announced on 25-12-1989 which was a public holiday, supports the plea of the appellant that opportunity of hearing was not allowed and that application was rejected in its absence and without considering the real point raised in the application. Even otherwise, the order passed by the respondent does not appear to be logical, as similar relief was granted by the Registrar, for extending the benefit of the distinct feature by way of registration of the word ICI in Urdu and in Sindhi but request for similar relief in the later application has been refused. Be that as it may, since the order cannot sustain on the ground that the appellant has not been heard, therefore, the other question will be attended to by the Registrar when the matter will be reopened.
7. For the reasons above, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the application of the appellant shall be deemed to be pending before the respondent which shall be decided afresh after hearing the appellant and by recording cogent reasons. The pending application will be decided by the Registrar within three months.