The Commercial Court has jurisdiction over trademark disputes, and the validity of trademark registration is not subject to interim injunction proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. This appeal is filed against order dated 29.09.2022 passed by Commercial Court, Ajmer granting interim injunction in favour of respondent-plaintiff.

2. The brief facts are that appellant is a proprietorship concern of Vivek Jangir s/o Raj Kumar, the grandson of Madanlal Jangir. The respondent is a proprietorship concern of Sajjan Kumar Jangir s/o Madanlal Jangir. M/s Madan Engineering works since 1971 is engaged in manufacturing of agricultural equipments and the trademark with logo of ‘MEW’ was registered on 12.08.2016 bearing registration No.2632425. After death of Madan Lal Jangir (hereinafter referred to as deceased), his widow Smt. Mangi Devi Jangir became the proprietor. Vide registered gift deed dated 04.09.2020, Smt. Mangi Devi and Rajkumar (father of the appellant) gifted to respondent the business of M/s. Madan Engineering Works along with assets. The suit was filed by the respondent seeking permanent injunction pleading infringement and unfair trade practice of using trademark of the respondent. An application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was allowed by the impugned order restraining the appellant from use of trademark of M/s Madan Engineering Work by using the name M/s Shree Madan Engineering Works. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that dispute between two brothers is a family dispute and the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction. The contention is that petition for cancellation of the trademark of the respondent is pending before this Court. Reliance is placed upon Sections 14 and 18 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1999”) to submit that transfer of trademark was in violation of provisions. The submission is that trademark was registered for ‘MEW’ and not for Madan Engineering Works and this fact was not considered while passing the impugned order.

4. As per contra the gift deed specifically mentions that the respondent can get the trademark transferred in his name and in fact it was transferred.

5. The business of the M/s. Madan Engineering Works was succeeded by Smt. Mangi Devi Jangir widow of the deceased and the trademark was got registered in the year 2016. Smt. Mangi Devi and father of the appellant by registered gift deed dated 04.09.2020 gifted the business along with the assets including trademark to the respondent. The trademark was thereafter transferred in the name of respondent.

6. Albeit, as on date there are litigations between the parties qua the registration of trademark and challenging the gift deed but there is no stay in favour of appellant. In other words, as on date trademark is registered in the name of the respondent and by the gift deed the ownership of the business vests with respondent.

7. Before proceeding further as an abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made hereinafter are only for purpose of deciding the appeal against the order granting interim injunction and shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

8. The contention that it is a case of family dispute and Commercial Court has no jurisdiction lacks merit. The suit for permanent injunction is filed pleading that the trademark registered in the name of the respondent is being misused by the appellant. Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 specifically includes dispute regarding Intellectual Properties Rights of registered and unregistered trademarks, copyrights, patents, designs etc. within the ambit of commercial dispute and there is no distinction made of such dispute arising between the brothers.

9. The second contention that the petition for cancellation of the trademark is pending before this Court does not enhance cause of grievance of the appellant. There is no interim protection in favour of the appellant.

10. The reliance on sections 14 and 28 of 1999 Act needs no dilation at this stage. Suffice to say that the issue with regard to the validity of registratio