IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
H.P.SANDESH, J.
M/s. Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Lakshmi Venkateshwar – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 77807 of 2013 (GM-CPC)
Decided on : 13-09-2024
Trademark - Quashing of Injunction - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 124 - The court interpreted Section 124 to emphasize that if a rectification application is pending, the civil suit must be stayed, ensuring that trademark validity issues are resolved by the appropriate tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash an order denying a stay of proceedings in a trademark infringement suit while a rectification application was pending. They argued that the trial court misapplied Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the stay application under Section 124, as the petitioners had raised valid concerns regarding the trademark's validity, which warranted a stay of the civil proceedings.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the application for stay of proceedings under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 124 mandates a stay of civil proceedings if a rectification application is pending, emphasizing the need for trademark validity issues to be resolved by the appropriate authority.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the trial court's order is quashed, staying further proceedings pending the rectification application.
ORDER :
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed invoking writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying this Court quash the order dated 30.03.2013 passed on I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.3/2012 by the Principal District Judge at Ballari vide Annexure-J and consequently allow the same and as a result further proceedings in O.S.No.3/2012 be stayed pending disposal of the rectification proceedings before Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai and grant such other reliefs as deemed fit in the circumstance of the case.
3. The petitioners while seeking a writ of certiorari contended that few partners of the petitioners began the business of manufacturing and supplying rice produces in the year 1993 under the name and style of ‘M/s. Sri Raghavendra Agro Agencies’, under the brand name ‘R Gold’. Thereafter, in the year 1998, ‘M/s. Sri Raghavendra Agro Agencies’, introduced a new product ‘Sortex Silky Rice’ under the brand name ‘Swamy Ayyappa Gold’. Two different partnership firms were formed namely ‘Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries’ and ‘Sri Laxmi Vinayaka Rice Industries’ in the year 1998. Application was filed by the petitioner for registration of trademark ‘Swamy Ayyappa Gold’ and ‘Image/Device of Lord Ayyappa’ before the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai in Application No.1973803 and No.1474317 in the year 2010.
4. It is contended that the respondent herein filed suit in O.S.No.3/2012 before Principal District Judge at Ballari seeking an order of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from using the brand name ‘Swamy Ayyappa Gold’. Respondent herein filed Application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for brevity) for an order of interim injunction restraining the petitioners herein from marketing its products under the name and style of ‘Swamy Ayyappa Gold’" on 27.02.2012 and the application filed by the respondent herein for temporary injunction is allowed by Principal District Judge at Ballari on 01.03.2012. It is also the contention of the petitioners herein that they have filed written statement to the suit on 12.04.2012 after the disposal of the interim application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Petitioners herein filed objections to the application filed by the respondent herein under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC on 12.04.2012 and interim order granted on 01.03.2012 was modified by the Principal District Judge Ballari on 19.04.2012.
5. It is also the contention of the petitioners that they have filed an application for rectification before the Trademarks Registrar, Chennai against the trademark of respondent herein on 24.07.2012 and notice was also issued to the respondent herein by the Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai on 08.10.2012 and petitioners herein also filed an application in I.A.No.VII under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity) seeking stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.3/2012 pending the rectification proceedings before the Trademarks Registrar, Chennai on 21.02.2013. Petitioners herein also filed memo with documents to show that proceedings before the Trademarks Registrar is pending for rectification of the trademark of the respondent on 21.02.2013 and also respondent herein filed objections to the application filed by the petitioner under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on 28.02.2013 and the Trial Court having heard both the counsels, dismissed the application vide order dated 30.03.2013. Hence, the present petition is filed being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of I.A.No.VII.
6. Counsel for the petitioners relied upon document at Annexure-A which is the copy of amended plaint and contends that the respondent has pleaded that the trademark ‘Ayyappan’ has been used since 1992 for a period of ten years and after the ten years
Ramdev Food Products vs. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Others reported in (2006) 8 SCC 726
Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai reported in AIR 1999 SC 22
B.Mohamed Yousuff vs. Prabha Singh Jaswant Singh and Others reported in 2008 (38) PTC 576 (Mad)
Arun Colour Chem and Others vs. Mithumal Essence Mart and Another reported in 167 (2010) DLT 285
The court established that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a civil suit must be stayed if a rectification application regarding trademark validity is pending.
The trial court must only record prima facie satisfaction regarding the invalidity of a trademark under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act without detailed evaluation of evidence.
The court ruled that a suit not questioning trademark validity and filed solely for injunction does not invoke stay under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, emphasizing mandatory issue framing....
A plea regarding the invalidity of a trademark registration can be raised in a counter affidavit and is not restricted to a written statement under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act.
The right to cancel a trademark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act is independent of ongoing infringement suits and remains available for invocation regardless of related Section 124 implication....
The trial court must assess only the prima facie tenability of claims regarding trademark validity under Section 124, without delving into the merits of those claims.
Trademark rectification petitions require a triable issue on validity to proceed; without this, claims are not maintainable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The court emphasized that the validity of a trademark must be resolved by the Tribunal, and interim relief can be considered despite the challenge pending resolution of validity.
The trial court must assess the prima facie tenability of a plea of trademark invalidity in infringement actions, underpinning the jurisdictional responsibility under Section 124 of the Trademarks Ac....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.