In Re: Kenya Farmers Association (Co Operative) Limited; In Re: Trade Marks Ordinance 1930 (C.C. 262/1932.) [1933] EACA 10 (1 January 1933)

## ORIGINAL CIVIL.

### Before LUCIE-SMITH, Ag. C. J.

## IN THE MATTER OF THE KENYA FARMERS' ASSOCIA-TION (CO-OPERATIVE) LIMITED

#### $and$

# IN THE MATTER OF THE TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE, 1930.

### C. C. $262/1932$ .

- Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930—Section 10—Registration of distinctive mark-Procedure-Section 18-Trade Marks Rules, 1931. - Held (4-12-33).—That the Court has no jurisdiction in the first in-<br>stance to entertain an application under section 13 of the Trade<br>Marks Ordinance, 1930. The Court's jurisdiction only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

Hopley for Applicant.—Referred to Maxwell v. Hogg (1866), II Ch. App. Cases, p. 307; In re Applications of W. and G. Du Cros. Ltd. (1912), 1 Ch. Div. 644; The Registrar of Trade Marks v. W. and G. Du Cros, Ltd. (1913), A. C. 624; In re Birmingham Small Arms Company's Application (1907), 2 Ch. Div. 396.

Registrar of Trade Marks in person.

JUDGMENT.—This matter comes before the Court by way of motion, and is an application for an order that the letters " K. F. A." is a distinctive mark under the Trade Marks Ordinance, 1930, and that the said mark shall be registrable as the trade mark of the applicants.

I find that this Court at present has no jurisdiction in the matter, as the Court's jurisdiction only arises on appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks, vide section 13 (3) of the Ordinance and Rule 90 of the Trade Marks Rules, 1931.

The procedure to be adopted on an application for registration is laid down in section 13 of the Ordinance (which is word for word the same as section 12 of the English Act) and in the Trade Marks Rules, 1931, Rules 15 to 34.

The duties of the Registrar as towards the public on the application are set out in the judgments of Lord Shaw of Dunfermline and Lord Parker of Waddington in Registrar of Trade Marks v. W. and G. Du Cros, Ltd. (1913), A. C. 624, at pp. 629 and 633 respectively. The argument of Sir Rufus Isaacs in that case makes interesting reading.

The application must be dismissed as being premature.

$\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{F} \mathcal{F}_{\mathcal{A}}$

No order as to costs.