Back
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd. , Coimbatore – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai – Respondent
Key Points: - The court held that territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location of the Trademark Registry; since the Mumbai Trademark Registry issued the impugned order, the Bombay High Court is the proper forum. (!) (!) - The appeal before the Madras High Court was dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction, but the time spent in that court may be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. (!) (!) - The appellant is allowed to approach the Bombay High Court for relief, and the registry was directed to return the impugned order to the appellant. No costs. (!) - The decision references applicable statutes and precedents regarding jurisdiction over appeals arising from Trademark Registry decisions and aligns with decisions in similar patent/trademark jurisdiction questions. (!) (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
(Abdul Quddhose, J.)
(Prayer: This appeal is filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 7 read with Rule 11 of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the first respondent in Opposition No.1167193 in respect of the Trademark Application No.4409145 in Class 11, and consequently direct the first respondent to proceed further with the said opposition proceedings in accordance with law and by serving the defect notice if any, upon the appellant for compliance and to proceed further with the opposition proceedings, with costs.)
This appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the first respondent in the opposition petition filed by the appellant opposing grant of trademark registration in respect of the mark 'NAVEO' in favour of the second respondent under Class 11. Under the impugned order, opposition petition has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent stating that the present appeal
Jurisdiction for trademark appeals is determined by the location of the Trademark Registry, not the appellant's office location.
High Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 can't be exercised on mere apprehensions without solid grounds.
Section 134 (2) of Trade Mark Act, does not mandate that place of business necessarily be the place of registered office. Company like plaintiff may have several places of business and Act enables th....
Territorial jurisdiction in trademark infringement suits can be established based on alleged marketing actions in the jurisdiction, upheld by assuming the truth of the plaint's claims pending trial.
Jurisdiction for trademark infringement suits requires courts to accept plaint allegations as true; future apprehension of infringement can establish justiciability.
The interpretation of the expression 'carries on business' in the context of the plaintiff under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, and the restrictions on the plaintiff's right t....
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
