Law:

Section:

  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 27-31090, but the same was not replied. It is alleged that, through covering letter dated 9-91990 the copy of impugned order was supplied to the appellant, which was received on 17-9-1990.   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) 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…