Second Appeal Not Maintainable Under Trade Marks Act: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Dunlop's Appeal

The Calcutta High Court recently reaffirmed that a second appeal against a Single Judge's order is not permissible under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court clarified that once an appeal from an order passed by the Registrar of Trademarks is decided by a Single Judge, no further appeal can be filed before a Division Bench in view of the bar under Section 100A of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

A Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Om Narayan Rai delivered the ruling on November 4, 2025, while dismissing an appeal filed by Delhi-based service company Glorious Investment Ltd. in a dispute concerning the registration of the “DUNLOP” trademark.

Glorious Investment had applied to register the “DUNLOP” mark before the Deputy Registrar of Trademarks, who allowed the registration in July 2024 after overruling objections raised by UK-based company Dunlop International Ltd. Dunlop challenged this decision before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. On June 11, 2025, the Single Judge set aside the Registrar's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Aggrieved by that decision, Glorious Investment filed a further appeal before the Division Bench. Dunlop International argued that the present appeal amounted to a second appeal, which is barred under Section 100A of the CPC. It was submitted that once an appeal has been heard and decided by a Single Judge, no further appeal lies to a Division Bench, even under the Letters Patent. Glorious Investment, on the other hand, contended that Section 100A applies only to appeals arising from civil courts, whereas the Registrar of Trademarks is an administrative authority.

The court examined whether the Registrar of Trademarks could be regarded as having the “trappings of a court,” which is the key test to determine the applicability of Section 100A. Referring to Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act, which empowers the Registrar to summon witnesses and receive evidence like a civil court, the Bench held that the Registrar does exercise such judicial functions.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Kamal Kumar Dutta v. Ruby General Hospital Ltd. and the Calcutta High Court's ruling in Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs v. Vishnuprasad Mohanlal Panchal, the Bench observed:

“In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to not extend the prohibition contained in Section 100A of the Code to appeals filed under Section 91 of the 1999 Act.”

The court also noted that under the earlier Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, there was a specific provision for a second appeal, but this was consciously omitted in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, indicating the legislature's intention to limit such remedies.

Accordingly, the court held that Section 100A of the CPC bars a further intra-court appeal from a Single Judge's order under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and dismissed the appeal filed by Glorious Investment Ltd. as not maintainable.