Back
SUNITA AGARWAL, ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Microsoft Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Azure Knowledge Corporation Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sunita Agarwal, C.J.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed to assail the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2024 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Commercial Civil Suit No. 533 of 2021 (Ex. 137), rejecting the said application filed by the defendant under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred at as ‘the T.M.Act, 1999’).
2. The brief facts relevant to decide the controversy are that the Commercial Civil Suit praying for permanent injunction on the plea of infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘AZURE’ by the defendant was filed on 06.02.2020. The plaintiff claims exclusive rights in the trade mark ‘AZURE’ with respect to which the plaintiff has obtained registration on 18.06.1998 as a device mark (‘AZURE’) under Class-9 for ‘Computer Software’. On 05.04.2010, the plaintiff filed five applications for device mark ‘AZURE’ under Classes 16, 37, 38, 41 and 42, which were duly registered. Four more applications were, thereafter, filed for registration of the trade marks by the plaintiff comprised of the word ‘AZURE’. The defendants, on the other hand, filed application
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.
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 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 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....
Trademark rectification petitions require a triable issue on validity to proceed; without this, claims are not maintainable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark from the register of trade marks must establish a fresh cause of action for rectific....
The court established that a defendant can challenge the validity of a trademark registration under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, based on a low threshold prima facie case.
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
