AMIT BANSAL
Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
E1 Entertainment Television, LLC – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Amit Bansal, J.
I.A. 4831/2022(of the respondent no.1 u/s 151 of CPC)
1. The present rectification petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for rectification of the trademark register qua trademark registration no.1252812, which is registered in class 99 (classes 38 and 41) in favour of the respondent no.1 since 2nd December, 2003.
2. The present application has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1 seeking dismissal of the aforesaid rectification petition.
3. Notice in this application was issued on 5th March, 2022 and reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1. Rejoinder thereto has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1.
4. Counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that the petitioner was aware of the registration in favour of the respondent no.1 as far back as on 6th June, 2018 and despite a suit, being CS(COMM) 253/2019, having been filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 on 10th May, 2019, the petitioner took no steps to have a preliminary issue framed on the alleged invalidity of the respondent no.1’s trademark. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Anr. v. P.M. Diesels
Patel Field Marshal Agencies and anr. v. P.M. Diesels Limited and Ors.
In a case where issue of invalidity is raised or arises independent of a suit, prescribed statutory authority will be sole authority to deal with matter.
A trademark rectification petition is not maintainable if the validity is contested in a prior ongoing suit, as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The jurisdiction to exercise rectification of a mark is subject to the finding of the Civil Court as regards the prima facie tenability of the plea of invalidity, as a statutory safeguard to prevent ....
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.
Trademark rectification petitions cannot be filed while a related civil suit is pending without permission, as held in the Supreme Court decision on jurisdiction over trademark validity.
Point of Law : Sections 46 and 56 provide an independent statutory right to an aggrieved party to seek rectification of a trade mark. However, in the event the civil court is approached, inter alia, ....
Timely filing of rectification petitions under the Trademarks Act is mandatory; failure to comply without extension results in abandonment of the validity issue.
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....
The validity of registration of the trademark should be decided first in the rectification petition before the infringement action is decided, and the procedure can be tailored to meet the specific r....
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.
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.