Hershey Company vs Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree Ganesh Namkeen

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
The Hershey Company - Appellant
Versus
Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree Ganesh Namkeen & Anr. - Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179 of 2023 etc.
Decided On : 09-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Urfee Roomi, Ms. Apoorva Bharati, Ms. Anuja Chaudhury, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Mr. Anubhav Chhabra & Ms. Radhika Arora, Advocates, for the Petitioner in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179 of 2023.
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179 of 2023.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Mr. R. V. Yogesh, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Ms Twinkle Rathi, Mr. K. V. Pawan Kumar, Ms. Tejasvini Puri, & Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179 of 2023.
Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Ms. Sulekha Agarwal, Ms. Soumya Singh, Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Shantanu Agarwal & Mr. Skanda Shekhar, Advocates, for the Petitioner in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022 and I.A. 20333/2022.
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022 and I.A. 20333/2022.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Mr. R. V. Yogesh, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Ms Twinkle Rathi, Mr. K. V. Pawan Kumar, Ms. Tejasvini Puri, & Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates, for the Respondent.
Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Ms. Sulekha Agarwal, Ms. Soumya Singh, Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Shantanu Agarwal & Mr. Skanda Shekhar, Advocates, for the Petitioner in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 782/2022 and I.A. 20524/2022.
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 782/2022 and I.A. 20524/2022.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Mr. R. V. Yogesh, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Ms Twinkle Rathi, Mr. K. V. Pawan Kumar, Ms. Tejasvini Puri, & Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 782/2022 and I.A. 20524/2022.
Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Ms. Sulekha Agarwal, Ms. Soumya Singh, Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Mr. Shantanu Agarwal & Mr. Skanda Shekhar, Advocates, for the Petitioner in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 783/2022.
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 783/2022.
Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Mr. R. V. Yogesh, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Ms. Vishakha Gupta, Ms Twinkle Rathi, Mr. K. V. Pawan Kumar, Ms. Tejasvini Puri, & Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 783/2022.
Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Surya Rajappan, Ms. Tejasvini Puri & Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates, for the Petitioner in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2022.
Mr. Gautam Wadhwa, Advocate for R-1 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2022.
Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2022.
Mr. Alankar Kirpekar and Mr. Arun C Mohan, Amicus Curiae in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2022
Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2022.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 57 - The jurisdiction of High Court for rectification/cancellation petitions post-Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021 - The Court examined that the absence of a clear definition of 'High Court' creates ambiguity, leading to debates on jurisdiction based on territoriality versus dynamic effect. The Petitioner argued for broader jurisdiction, while opposing counsel emphasized the importance of consistency with statutory definitions and the historical context of Trade Mark law. The Court concluded that jurisdiction issues require further clarity and determination by a larger bench given the implications of the Tribunal Reforms Act on existing laws. (Paras 1, 52-54)

Facts of the case:
The case involved multiple rectification petitions addressing the jurisdiction of the High Court over trademark cancellations/rectifications under Section 57 without a defined High Court, especially following the Tribunal Reforms Act. (Paras 1-2)

Findings of Court:
The initial findings suggest that jurisdiction over trade mark disputes is complex due to the conflicting views on the geographic nexus of High Courts versus where the dynamic effects of registrations are felt. (Paras 50-51)

Issues: The main issues discussed include the interpretation of 'High Court' under Section 57, the jurisdictional implications post-TRA, and whether jurisdiction is limited to High Courts associated with the trademark registrar's office. (Paras 48, 52)

Ratio Decidendi: The court indicated that legislative intent behind Section 57 remains unclear due to the absence of a definition post-TRA. It raised concerns about judicial interpretations that might expand jurisdiction inconsistently across High Courts, necessitating careful deliberation. (Paras 51-54)

Result: To be reviewed by a larger bench for clarified jurisdictional determination. (Para 54)

Table of Content
1. jurisdiction of high court in rectification petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's view on the legislative intent and implications. (Para 7 , 9 , 30)
3. parties' differing views on jurisdiction criteria. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. call for larger bench regarding jurisdictional matters. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

Background

1. The present batch of matters highlight a significant issue that has come to the attention of this Court concerning its jurisdiction to consider rectification/cancellation petitions under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter `the 1999 Act'), following the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

2. In the present batch, there are a total of five rectification petitions filed under Section 57 of the 1999 Act:

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2022,
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022,
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 782/2022,
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 783/2022,
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023

3. A brief background of the petitions is captured as follows:

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-151/2022:
Liberty Footwear Co. v. Liberty Industrial Group Pte Ltd.Impugned mark`LIBERTY STEEL' (device mark)
TM Application No. 3559438 dated 29th May, 2017
Appropriate Office of the impugned markMumbaiRespondent's place of businessSingaporePetitioner's place of businessRegistered Address: Karnal, Haryana Also at: Punjabi Bagh West, New DelhiC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-778/2022:
M/s. Kohinoor Seeds Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Veda Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Impugned mark`VEDA BASANT GOLD' (device mark), TM Application No. 5078923 dated 7th August, 2021Appropriate Office of the impugned markChennai.Respondent No. 1's place of businessGuntur, Andhra Pradesh.Petitioner's place of businessRegistered Office in Shalimar Bagh, New DelhiC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-782/2022:
M/s. Kohinoor Seeds Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Veda Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Impugned mark`VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD' (device mark) TM Application: 5078922 dated 7th August, 2021Appropriate Office of the impugned markChennai.Respondent No. 1's place of businessGuntur, Andhra Pradesh.Petitioner's place of businessRegistered Office in Shalimar Bagh, New DelhiC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)- 783/2022:
M/s. Kohinoor Seeds Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Veda Sciences Pvt. Ltd.
Impugned mark`VEDA SADANAND GOLD' (device mark) TM Application: 5078921 dated 7th August, 2021Appropriate Office of the impugned markChennai.Respondent No. 1's place of businessGuntur, Andhra Pradesh.Petitioner's place of businessRegistered Office in Shalimar Bagh, New DelhiC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023:
The Hershey Co. v. Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading as Shree Ganesh Namkeen
Impugned mark`HARSHY' (device mark)
TM Application No. 3897902 dated 25th July, 2018
Appropriate OfficeMumbaiRespondent's place of businessCat Road, Indore, Madhya PradeshPetitioner's place of businessPennsylvania, U.S.A.

4. A brief background of these petitions is that in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 151/2022, on 22nd December, 2022, notice was issued to the Liberty Industrial Group Pte. Ltd. Thereafter, on 18th July, 2023, this petition was directed to be listed before this Court on 20th July, 2023 along with C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022.

5. In C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 778/2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 782/2022, notice was issued to Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. on 6th December, 2022. In C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 783/2022, notice was issued on 5th January, 2023 to Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, vide order dated 12th July, 2023, the above rectification petitions were directed to be listed along with C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023.

6. In C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 179/2023, vide order dated 5th July, 2023, this Court issued notice to the Respondent-single proprietorship concern, therein, i.e. Dilip Kumar Bacha trading as Shree Ganesh Namkeen. While issuing notice in the said rectification petition, this Court posed a query to the ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, regarding the maintainability of the petition before this Court, as the Appropriate office of the Trade Marks Registry in terms

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Del) 376

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIPrathiba M. Singh, J.The Hershey Company - AppellantVersusDilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree Ganesh Namkeen & Anr. - RespondentsC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179 of 2023 etc.Decided On : 09-02-2024

Cases Referred (19)

Related Judgments

Hershey Company VS Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree Ganesh Namkeen - 2024 Supreme(Del) 376

Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd Through its Power of Attorney Subash Gaijes Selvaraj VS Suraj Sharma - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 625

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited VS Controller of Patents - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1995

Nalli Sambbasivam VS Nalli Chinnasami Chetty - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3230

ORIENTAL METALS LLP vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24562

V. R. Holdings VS Hero Investocorp Limited - 2023 Supreme(Del) 3119

Sterling Irrigations vs Bharat Industries - 2025 Supreme(All) 2854

Anubhav Jain vs Satish Kumar Jain

Bennett, Coleman and Company Limited VS E1 Entertainment Television, LLC - 2022 Supreme(Del) 784

S.N. Kapoor Export (Bhagidari Firm) vs Saraswati Global Limited - 2025 Supreme(Raj) 2686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
The Hershey Company - Appellant
Versus
Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading As Shree Ganesh Namkeen & Anr. - Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 179 of 2023 etc.
Decided On : 09-02-2024