Supreme Court dismisses constitutional recourse against Registrar's costs order for non-advocate appearance.

[*1159] 1968 October 19

(TRIANTFYLLIDES, J.)

REVISIONAL JURISDICTION

In the matter of Article 146 of the Constitution

Carabet S. Terzian,

Applicant,

and

The Republic of Cyprus, through

The Registrar of Trade Marks,

Respondent.

(Case No. 104/68.).

Trade Marks Law Cap. 268, section 42 and Trade Marks Rules 1951 rule 14

- Recourse against order for costs in an unsuccessful Trade Marks application - Respondent acted within proper exercise of his powers - Absence of fees C prescribed for trade marks proceedings does not vitiate sub-judice decision.

Constitutional Law - Article 146 of the Constitution - Whether a recourse lies against a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks awarding costs

- Question left open.

Constitutional Law - Article 25(2) of the Constitution - Professional rights of advocates - Appearance by persons who are not advocates in Trade Marks proceedings - Not unconstitutional.

A. Emilianides, for the Applicant.

A. Frangos, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

The following Judgment was delivered by:

TRIANTAFYLLIDES, J.: In this case the Applicant complains against an order for costs made against him by the Respondent Registrar of Trade Marks, as a result of an unsuccessful application, by the Applicant, for the registration in Cyprus of the word “Mazola” as a trade mark. [*1160]

The said order is to be found at the end of the relevant decision of the Registrar, on the substance of the trade mark application, which is dated the 1st February,1968, (see exhibit 1) the Applicant was ordered, thereby, to pay &36.250 mils’ costs to the opponents of such application.

I have decided to leave, in this case, open the question as to whether or not a matter such as the present one could have been brought before this Court under Article

146 of the Constitution; I have followed such a course because, in my opinion, this recourse, even ifnentertainable under Article 146, cannot succeed, in any case, in the circumstances.

It has been argued, first, by the Applicant that a certain Mr. Psaras, the general manager of Messrs. Saba & Co. - a concern which undertakes trade marks work - who appeared for the opponents of the registration of the trade mark, in the proceedings before the Respondent, was not an advocate in Cyprus and, therefore, he was not entitled so to appear, and it was not possible, or proper, for the Respondent to make an order for costs in favour of the opponents.

But it is clear from rule 14 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1951, that it is possible for a person who is not an advocate to act as agent in trade marks proceedings before the Respondent. Moreover, under section 42 of the Trade Marks e Law, Cap. 268, the Respondent has power to award to any party such costs as he may consider reasonable.

Having gone into the circumstances of the present matter, I do find that the Respondent has acted within the proper exercise of his powers, under the aforesaid rule 14 [*1161] and section 42, and that the costs awarded (in exhibit 2) are not in any way unreasonable; also, I find nothing vitiating the sub judice decision of the Respondent in the fact that, in the absence of fees prescribed for the purposes of trade marks proceedings, he may possibly have based the computation of the costs on the analogy of fees for civil proceedings before a District Court.

It has been argued that the course adopted by the Respondent encourages persons who are not advocates in Cyprus to appear in trade marks proceedings and to compete, in this manner, with advocates, and that this is contrary to the professional rights of advocates; and in the Application in this recourse reference is made, in this respect, to Article 25 of the Constitution. I can find nothing in Article 25, or elsewhere in the Constitution, which would lead me in the

conclusion that the action of the Respondent, which is complained of by this recourse, is unconstitutional. If it is, for any reason given in Article 25(2) of the Constitution, necessary not to allow persons other than advocates to represent parties in trade marks proceedings then this is a matter to be provided for by legislation.

In the circumstances the recourse fails and it is dismissed accordingly, with costs, which I assess at £8.

Application dismissed.

Order for costs as

aforesaid.