Trade Mark Act, 2009; Section 2(12), 100
Trade Mark Rules, 2015 Rule 10, 14, 15 and 50(1)
Supreme Court of Bangladesh (High Court Division) Rules, 1973
Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; Article 107(1)
Code of Civil Procedure Order XLI Rule 1, Order XLIII Rule 2
Limitation Act, 1908 (1st Schedule) Section 5, 29(2) and Article 156
Since Bangladesh Supreme Court (High Court Division) Rules, 1973 does not prescribe any time limit for preferring appeal before the High Court Division against the order passed by the Registrar under the Act, 2009 as such, the time frame as prescribed in Rule 50(1) of the Rules of 2015 is applicable. ...Kazi Md. Kamrul Islam Vs. Registrar, Dep. of PDTM & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

Limitation Act, 1908 Section 5, 29(2) and Article 156 of the 1st Schedule
Trade Mark Act, 2009 Section 100(2)
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be applied for condoning delay in preferring appeal under Section 100(2) of the Trade Mark Act, 2009:
It is the established principles of law that under special law when time period has been prescribed for preferring appeal Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 cannot be applied unless incorporated by the Legislature in express terms. Trade Mark Act, 2009 being a special law and having prescribed specific period for preferring appeal before the High Court Division as such, in the absence of incorporation of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 it shall have no manner of application for condoning delay in preferring appeal under Section 100(2) of the Act, 2009. ...Kazi Md. Kamrul Islam Vs. Registrar, Dep. of PDTM & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act, 2009 provides that priority of use of this mark gets paramount consideration compared to registration. The right created in favour of a registered proprietor of a trade mark is not an absolute right and is subservient to other provisions of the Act. In other words, registration of a trade mark does not provide a defence to the proceedings for passing of as under section 24 of the Act, 2009. A prior user of trade mark can maintain an action for passing off against any subsequent user of an identical trade mark including a registered user thereof. ...BBC Vs. Registrar, DPDTM & ors, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 89 ....View Full Judgment

Section 42 of the Trade Marks Act, 2009 deals with the removal and impose limitation of the mark from the registrar book for non use of the trade mark. According to sub section (1) of section 42 of the Trade Mark Act, 2009, on the basis of any application by any aggrieved person, High Court Division or Registrar of Trade Mark can remove any mark from the register book, if the applicant of the trade mark registration of the goods or service or constituting company under section 41 of the Trade Marks Act, 2009 has no honest intention or 1(one) month prior registration of the mark had not use the mark for honest purpose or has no use the mark for honest purpose after 5(five) years and above from the date of registration. .....Danish Foods Ltd Vs. Rani Food Industries Ltd & anr, (Spl. Statutory 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 104 ....View Full Judgment

Both the conditions set out in cl. (a) are cumulative and not disjunctive. Cl. (a), therefore, will not apply where even though there had been no bona fide intention on the part of the application for registration to use to trade mark but, in fact, there has been a bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to a date one month before the date of the application under S. 42(1). Similarly, Cl. (a) will not apply where, though there had been a bona fide intention on the part of the applicant for registration to use the trade mark, in fact, there has been no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to a date one month before the date of the application. .....Danish Foods Ltd Vs. Rani Food Industries Ltd & anr, (Spl. Statutory 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 104 ....View Full Judgment

The petitioner is the registered trademark holder of the goods in question. Section 96 of the said Act has given protection to the petitioner. Under Section 96 of the said Act, the petitioner company is legally entitled to file suit before civil court for violation of any provision of the Trademarks Act, 2009. ...Unilever Bd Ltd. Vs. Chairman, National Board of Revenue & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 137 ....View Full Judgment

Trade Mark Act, 2009 Section 100 (2) r/w
Trade Mark Rules, 2015: Rule 50(1)
In view of Section 100 (2) of the Act, 2009 read with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, 2015 the limitation period for preferring appeal before the High Court Division is 2 (two) months to be computed from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order or decision of the Registrar and that vide Rule 15(8) the date on which the decision of the Registrar, so passed under Rule 15(6), is sent to the applicant in Form TMR-19 shall be deemed to be the date of decision of the Registrar. ...Kazi Md. Kamrul Islam Vs. Registrar, Dep. of PDTM & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

Trade Mark Act, 2009 Section 100(2) r/w
Trade Mark Rules, 2015 Rule 15(6), 15(8), 50(1)
Time period for preferring appeal under Section 100(2) of the Trade Mark Act, 2009 read with Rule 50(1) of the Trade Mark Rules, 2015 is 2(two) months and time starts from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order or decision of the Registrar passed under Rule 15(6) read with Rule 15(8) of the Rules, 2015:
The time period as prescribed in Rule 15(7) has no role to play, for, vide Rule 15(7) the Registrar on receipt of the application in Form TM-15, if there be any, shall inform the applicant the reason of his decision so taken under Rule 15(7). In other words, sub rule (6) of Rule 15 deals with the decision “সিদ্ধান্ত” of the Registrar which is duly notified to the applicant on behalf of the Registrar in Form TMR-19 and Rule 15(8) deals with the date of the said decision for preferring appeal under Section 100 (2) read with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, 2015. Conversely, Rule 15(7) deals with supply of reasons “যুক্তিসমূহ” for taking the said decision by the Registrar, provided any prayer is made to that effect by the applicant. No where within the four corners of Section 100(2) of the Act, 2009 read with Rule 50(1) of the Rules, 2015 the time period so consumed for supply of the certified/copy of the reason “যুক্তিসমূহ” of the said decision in Form TM-15 has been made inclusive. Be that as it may, we have no manner of doubt to find that time period for preferring appeal under Section 100(2) read with Rule 50(1) is 2(two) months and time starts from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order or decision of the Registrar passed under Rule 15(6) read with Rule 15(8) of the Rules, 2015. ...Kazi Md. Kamrul Islam Vs. Registrar, Dep. of PDTM & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 1 ....View Full Judgment

An appeal under section 100(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 2009; Prior use of trade mark and prior application for registration in case of identical marks will go in favour of the prior user. ...Md. Anwar Hossain Vs. Registrar, Patents, Designs & Trade Mark, Dhaka & anr., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 78 ....View Full Judgment

When rectification proceeding is pending before this court, Suit for infringement of Trademark pending in the Court below should be stayed in view of Section 102 of the Trade Marks Act, 2009. ...Abul Khair Tabbaco and others Vs. Registrar of Taxes and others, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 93 ....View Full Judgment