Back
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Lotus Organic Care – Appellant
Versus
Aadhar Products Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
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,
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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.
Intellectual Property Law - Infringement of Trade mark - Passing off - while suit for infringement of trade mark has to be stayed under Section 124 of Trade Marks Act, when a rectification petition i....
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
