The High Court lacks jurisdiction over trademark cancellation petitions related to registrations granted by the Madras High Court.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed seeking to cancel/revoke the registration granted to the impugned mark “ORALIUM' registered under Class 19 in the name of the 2^nd respondent. A further direction is sought to rectify the entry in the Register of Trademarks in respect of removing the registration of the impugned registered trademark.

2. Pursuant to the receipt of notice, the 2nd respondent has entered appearance and has pointed out that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court inPAS Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited 2025 KHC 1126 as well as the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court inT.T.Salads and Grill LLP, v. Secretary, Department for promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Other 2025 SCC Online Ker.

13041

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent as well as the learned Central Government Counsel for the 1^st respondent.

4. In the decision inT.T.Salads and Grill LLP, (supra), the learned Single Judge had observed, after perusing the decision inPAS Agro Foods's (supra) that the power of rectification can be exercised only by the High Court that enjoys the appellate jurisdiction over the appropriate office of the Trade Mark Registry wherein the entry relating to the impugned trade mark was registered. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court inWoltop India Pvt.Ltd., v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine Mad. 9347) wherein it was held that, since the office of the trade mark Registries are currently located in Mumbai, New Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai and Ahamadabad, reference to the High Court in Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 can only be to the High Courts exercising appellate jurisdiction over those offices.

5. The relief sought for by the petitioner is to revoke or cancel the registration already granted to a mark. Registration was granted by the 1^st respondent, which is subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras. Since the remedy sought for by the petitioner, is in effect, one in the nature of Sections 47 & 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 , I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and the remedy of the petitioner is to move the appropriate court in tune with the decisions mentioned above.

Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.