SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1332

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Lotus Organic Care – Appellant
Versus
Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Divyanshu Choudhary, Mr. Vineet R.Dave.
For the Respondent:Dr. Ashok Soni, Sr. Advocate assisted by Ms. Sonali Vyas, Mr. Aman Soni, Mr. Yash Dadhich & Mr. Romil Bagrecha.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court states that the trial court must only record prima facie satisfaction regarding the invalidity of the trademark under Section 124, and not engage in detailed evaluation of evidence. (!) (!) - Section 124(1)(ii) requires that if a plea on invalidity is prima facie tenable and no such proceedings are pending, the court should raise an issue and adjourn to allow rectification proceedings. (!) (!) - The writ petition allowed; the trial court’s order rejecting Section 124 application was quashed and stayed proceedings related to infringement while permitting rectification proceedings to proceed. (!) - The pleadings in the written statement can suffice to establish prima facie tenability for Section 124; detailed appraisal is not required at this stage. (!) (!) - The suit for passing off may continue on its own framed issues, while the rectification process is undertaken separately. (!) - The court clarifies that the trial court is not required to evaluate the merits of the rectification application, only to satisfy prima facie about invalidity. (!) (!)

What is the proper scope of judicial inquiry under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trademarks Act when a stay of proceedings is sought in a trademark infringement suit?

What are the proper criteria for a trial court to record prima facie satisfaction regarding the invalidity of a trademark registration under Section 124, without delving into detailed evaluation of evidence?

What remedies or procedural steps are available when a trial court erroneously refuses to grant stay under Section 124 and how does a High Court review Address such error?


ORDER :

Mr. Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mawli, District Udaipur in Civil Suit No.62/2022 (17/2018), whereby the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1999') has been rejected.

3. Briefly noted the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for infringement and passing off of its registered label trademarks (1961814 & 2551769) before the learned trial court. In the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the summons were issued. The petitioner-defendant filed written statement to the suit preferred by the respondent-plaintiff. The trial court framed the issues on 09.10.2022. Thereafter, on the application moved by the respondent-plaintiff as well as by the petitioner-defendant, an additional issue was framed by the trial court on 23.02.2023. After framing of the issues by the learned trial court, the petitioner preferred an application under Section 124 of the Trademarks Act,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top