2025:MHC:485 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.02.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY W.P.(IPD)Nos.30 & 32 of 2024 M/s.Woltop India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Mr.Suresh Talbot Ashish, 696/1b1, 697/2, 698, 699, Villangadupakkam Village, New Madhavaram T.K., Thiruvallur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 060. ... Petitioner -vs-

1.Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110 011.

2.Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks, Registry, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai- 400 037.

3.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry Mumbai, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, S.M. Road, Antop Hill, Mumbai- 400 037.

4.The Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Ahmedabad, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, Near Chanakyapuri Overbridge, Besides AMC City Civic Centre, Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad- 380061.

5.Mr.Sandeep Kagalwala Sole Proprietor of M/s.Ace Assets, K-201, 2nd Floor, 'K' Wing, Western City Apartment, Nr.L.P. Savani School, Pal-Adajan, Surat -395009, Gujarat.

Also At A-11, Suryapur Soc Opp Jain Derasar, Rander Road, Surat- 395 009 Gujarat. .. Respondents Common Prayer: Writ Petitions (IPD) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4 to transfer the rectification petitions bearing Nos.272370 & 272372 initiated against Trademark Registration bearing Nos.4376003 in class 27 & 4545395 in class 35 filed by the petitioner before the 4^th respondent to the files of the Intellectual Property Division of this Hon'ble Court.

In both WPs.

For petitioner : Mr.Navod Prasannan for Mr.M.S.Bharath For R1 to R4 : No appearance For R5 : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar

COMMON ORDER

The writ petitioner filed C.S.(Comm.Div.)No.199 of 2023 against several parties, including the 5^th respondent in these writ petitions. In the civil suit, the petitioner herein has sought remedies in respect of alleged infringement of trade mark and passing off.

2.On the ground that the said civil suit is pending before this Court, by these two writ petitions, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to transfer rectification petition Nos.272370 & 272372, which are pending before the 4^th respondent, the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad, to this Court (the IPD).

3.These writ petitions were filed after requesting the 4^th respondent, by letter dated 30.05.2024, to exercise powers under Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the TM Act) and transfer the pending rectification petitions to the IPD of this Court.

4.Since the maintainability of these writ petitions was questioned, learned counsel for the petitioner addressed arguments thereon. His first contention was that it is just and necessary to consolidate proceedings, as provided in Rule 14 (1) of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2023 (the MHC IPD Rules) so as to enable the expeditious disposal of both the rectification petitions and the suit. In spite of making a request to the Registrar of Trademarks, he submits that no action has been taken thereon. His next contention is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court could not have been approached seeking such transfer because neither Article 139A of the Constitution of India nor Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) applies in the facts and circumstances.

5. As regards the power of this Court, by referring to Article 226 of the Constitution of India, learned counsel submits that power may be exercised by this Court provided cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court irrespective of the place of office of the authority to whom the writ is to be issued. He also relies upon the parliamentary debate preceding the amendment to Article 226 to substantiate the contention that the amendment was effected with the object of enabling High Co