Madras High Court
Dated: 11.12.2023 vs Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks & Gi on 11 December, 2023
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
2023:MHC:5361
WP(IPD)/30/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P(IPD)/30/2023
Asia Match Company Pvt. Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Boopathy Building, No.116(17/A),
Virudhunagar Road,
Sivakasi-626 123. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks & GI,
Trade Marks Registry,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
G.S.T.Road, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032.
2.P.Sundaram
Trading as Andal Match Works,
No.46, Bharathiyar Street,
Pichanoor Post, Gudiyattam-632 602. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition (IPD) filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus directing
the first respondent to transfer the Rectification Petition No.269638
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
pertaining to Trade Mark Application No.3958891 in Class 34 to this
Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Premchandar
Mr.N.C.Vishal
For R1 : Mr.G.Baskaran, CGSC
For R2 : Mr.R.Pushkar
Ms.Priya
ORDER
By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 1st
respondent to transfer Rectification Petition No.269638 pertaining to Trade
Mark Application No.3958891 in Class 34 to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner provided an overview of the
dates and events relating to this case. He pointed out that Rectification
Petition No.269638 was filed on 10.11.2020 by the writ petitioner before
the Registrar of Trade Marks. Thereafter, a civil suit was filed before this
Court in April 2021. The plaint was returned on the ground that this Court
does not have territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, the civil suit was filed
before the Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur in C.O.S.No.6 of 2022. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
also pointed out that the 2nd respondent herein filed the written statement in
the said suit. In such written statement, the defendant asserted that its trade
mark is registered and that the plaintiff therein was not entitled to sue for
infringement unless the registration is held to be invalid by the Registrar.
3. In the above facts and circumstances, learned counsel submits that
Section 125(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the Trade Marks Act)
becomes applicable and that the rectification proceedings are liable to be
transferred to this Court.
4. In response to these submissions, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent submits that sub-section (1) of Section 125 does not apply to a
situation where the rectification petition was filed prior to the suit. In
support of this contention, learned counsel refers to and relies upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagatjit Industries Limited v.
Intellectual Property Appellate Board and others (Jagatjit Industries),
(2016) 4 SCC 381. With specific reference to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the
judgment, learned counsel submits that the Supreme Court made it clear that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
a rectification petition may be filed either before the Registrar or the High
Court, if such petition is filed prior to the institution of the civil suit.
According to him, the said judgment applies squarely to this case and that,
therefore, no case is made out to transfer the rectification petition to this
Court. In this connection, he further submits that the pleadings are complete
in the rectification petition and that all that remains is to proceed with
arguments.
5. This case hinges on the interpretation of Section 125 of the Trade
Marks Act. Section 125 is set out below:
“125. Application for rectification of register to be
made to High Court in certain cases:
(1) Where in a suit for infringement of a registered
trade mark the validity of the registration of the plaintiff's
trade mark is questioned by the defendant or where in any
such suit the defendant raises a defence under clause (e)
of sub-section (2) of section 30 and the plaintiff questions
the validity of the registration of the defendant's trade
mark, the issue as to the validity of the registration of the
trade mark concerned shall be determined only on an
application for the rectification of the register and,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
notwithstanding anything contained in section 47 or
section 57, such application shall be made to the High
Court and not to the Registrar.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1),
where an application for rectification of the register is
made to the Registrar under section 47 or section 57, the
Registrar may, if he thinks fit, refer the application at any
stage of the proceedings to the High Court.”
Sub Section (1) of Section 125 applies in two situations. The first of these is
when the defendant in a suit for infringement questions the validity of
registration of the plaintiff's trade mark. The second situation is where the
defendant in a suit for infringement raises a defence on the basis of clause
(e) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 by relying on the registration of such
defendant. In both the above situations, if a rectification petition were to be
filed subsequently, such rectification petition would only lie before the High
Court and not before the Registrar. Therefore, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent is correct in submitting that sub-section (1) of Section 125
applies when the rectification petition is filed subsequent to the civil suit.
The provision clearly prescribes that the rectification petition shall only be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
filed before the High Court in that situation.
6. In the case at hand, the admitted factual position is that the
rectification petition was filed prior to the filing of the civil suit.
Undoubtedly, in such situation, both under Sections 47 and 57, the
rectification petitioner has the option of filing the petition either before the
Registrar or the High Court. It is this position which has been stated in
paragraph 24 of Jagatjit Industries. The said paragraph 24 is set out below:
“24. The scheme under Section 124 is of great
importance in understanding the scope of Section 125. It
is clear that where proceedings for rectification of the
register are pending before the filing of the suit for
infringement in which the defendant pleads that the
registration of the plaintiff's trade mark is invalid, such
proceedings may be made either before the Registrar or
before the Appellate Board, in view of Sections 57(1) and
(2) of the Act. But, if rectification proceedings are to be
instituted after the filing of such suit for infringement in
which the defendant takes the plea that registration of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
plaintiff's trade mark is invalid, then rectification
proceedings can only be taken before the Appellate Board
and not before the Registrar.”
7. Since the rectification petition was filed by the petitioner before the
Registrar, the petitioner herein addressed the Registrar on 15.09.2023 and
requested that Rectification Petition No.269638 be transferred. The
petitioner did not receive a reply till date from the Registrar of Trade Marks
in response to this request. Learned counsel for the Registrar of Trade
Marks submits, on instructions, that the Registrar of Trade Marks is
agreeable to transfer the rectification petition.
8. In a situation where the rectification petition was filed prior to the
institution of the civil suit, sub-section (2) of Section 125 undoubtedly
empowers the Registrar to transfer the application at any stage of the
proceedings to the High Court. By referring to the pending civil suit, the
petitioner made such request to the Registrar in September 2023. Especially
in view of the fact that the final order made in the rectification proceeding is
binding on the civil court in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 124 of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
Trade Marks Act, in situations where a civil suit is pending, it is appropriate
that the Registrar exercises discretionary power under sub-section (2) of
Section 125 by acceding to a request for transfer. Therefore, this is a fit case
to direct the Registrar to transfer the rectification petition.
9. For reasons set out above, WP(IPD)/30/2023 is allowed without
any order as to costs by directing the Registrar of Trade Marks to transfer
Rectification Petition No.269638 pertaining to Trade Mark Application
No.3958891 in Class 34 to the file of this Court within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of the
rectification petition, the Registry is directed to renumber the same and list
the petition for hearing, if in order.
11.12.2023
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP(IPD)/30/2023
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
kj
W.P(IPD)/30/2023
11.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
