Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
NEERAJ TIWARI
Sterling Irrigations – Appellant
Versus
Bharat Industries – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Neeraj Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Prateek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Chhaya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Present petition has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 6.5.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court No.2, Agra in Original Suit No. 04 of 2015 ( M/s. Bharat Industries vs. M/s Sterling Irrigation and others )
3. Pleadings are exchanged between the parties. With the consent of parties, writ petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.
4. Brief facts of the case are that petitioners-defendants has published notice in Amar Ujala on 18.6.2015 for transfer of registered trademark. Feeling aggrieved by that, respondent-plaintiff has filed Original Suit No. 4 of 2015 under Section 134 of The TRADE MARKS ACT , 1999 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1999) upon which petitioners-defendants have filed written submission alongwith counter claim on 15.12.2015. Thereafter, respondent-plaintiff filed reply to the counter claim on 31.5.2016. On the basis of pleadings made by both the parties, learned trial Court vide its order dated 22.8.2016 had framed issues. During the pendency of suit, petitioner-defendant has
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 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 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 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 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.
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....
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 has the inherent power to transfer rectification proceedings and consolidate trademark infringement and rectification proceedings for an effective resolution of disputes.
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
