Back
H. P. SANDESH
Sri Laxmi Balaji Industries – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Venkateshwar – Respondent
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 Vinaya
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
