Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea To Cancel ‘India Gate’ Trademark; Holds Only Delhi HC Has Jurisdiction As Mark Registered In Delhi
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Kerala High Court, Single Bench of Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim recently dismissed a special jurisdiction case filed under the Trade Marks Act by a Kerala-based firm seeking cancellation of the registered trademark “INDIA GATE” owned by KRBL Limited. The Court held that the rectification petition under Section 57 of the Act could not be maintained before the Kerala High Court, as the disputed mark was registered at the Trade Marks Registry in New Delhi, thereby placing jurisdiction exclusively with the Delhi High Court. Observing further that no issue regarding the validity of the registration had been framed in the pending infringement suit before the District Court in New Delhi, the Court declared the case not maintainable and dismissed it.
The petitioner, PAS Agro Foods, a firm based in Kerala, filed the Special Jurisdiction Case under Section 57 read with Sections 124 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957, seeking cancellation of the trademark registration of ‘INDIA GATE’ owned by KRBL Limited. The trademark, originally registered on June 18, 1993, was assigned to KRBL Limited through a Deed of Assignment dated August 6, 2019. KRBL Limited challenged the maintainability of the case by filing I.A. No. 2 of 2025, raising two principal objections: lack of territorial jurisdiction and prematurity.
KRBL Limited contended that only the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the mark was registered could entertain a rectification petition. Since the registration was granted by the New Delhi Registry, only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction. The petitioner’s counsel argued that part of the cause of action arose in Kerala, where its business operations were restrained due to the trademark and where the Commissioner seized goods related to ‘INDIA GATE’ pursuant to a Delhi court order. Hence, it was contended that the Kerala High Court was competent to hear the case under Section 57 of the Act.
The dispute originated when KRBL Limited filed an infringement suit under Section 134 of the Act before the District Commercial Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, which issued an injunction against PAS Agro Foods on January 21, 2025, followed by a Commissioner’s visit to the petitioner’s premises on January 27, 2025. PAS Agro Foods subsequently approached the Kerala High Court on February 7, 2025.
The Court noted that under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, a rectification petition is to be filed either before the Registrar or the High Court. Referring to Rule 4 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the Court stated that “the appropriate office of the Trade Marks Registry for Rectification Petition is the Trade Marks Registry within whose territorial limits the principal place of the registered proprietor is situated.” It observed that permitting petitions based on the ‘dynamic effect’ of registration within different High Court jurisdictions “would lead to utter chaos in the matter of adjudication.” The Court found merit in the view expressed by the Madras High Court in M/s. Woltop India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, holding that the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry concerned alone could entertain such petitions.
Addressing the second objection of prematurity, the Court quoted Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act and referred extensively to the Supreme Court’s judgements in Patel Field Marshal Agencies and Another v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. and Others (2018) 2 SCC 112. It recorded that “if a party does not raise a plea regarding the invalidity of the registration of the trade mark in the infringement suit, it has to be treated as if he has no grievance against the registration of the trade mark.” The Court observed that “the party having a grievance must first satisfy the civil court that the plea of invalidity is prima facie tenable before filing a rectification petition.” Since no such issue was framed before the Delhi District Court, the Kerala High Court concluded that the case was premature.
The judgment stated: “It is the High Court that exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the trade mark is registered, alone is having jurisdiction to entertain the Rectification Petitions with respect to such trade mark under Sections 47 or 57 of the Act.” The Court reasoned that since the ‘INDIA GATE’ trademark was registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, only the Delhi High Court could adjudicate on its rectification.
“The petitioner cannot file the above Special Jurisdiction Case under Section 57 of the Act seeking cancellation of the trade mark registration granted to the Respondent No.1 without framing an issue regarding the invalidity of the registration in C.S.(Comm) No.78/2025 pending before the District Court, New Delhi.” The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s observation in Patel Field Marshal Agencies that “the Civil Court is not empowered by the Act to decide the question of validity of a trade mark; the prescribed statutory authority must decide the same after the Civil Court records prima facie satisfaction.”
“In view of the findings under the aforesaid two grounds raised by the Respondent No.1, I hold that the above Special Jurisdiction Case is not maintainable. I.A. No.2/2025 is allowed accordingly.” Consequently, “SP.JC.No. 2/2025 is dismissed as not maintainable.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Smt. M. Uma Devi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Shri. Praveen K. Joy, Shri. R. Muraleekrishnan (Malakkara), Shri. T. Anup Joachim, Shri. M.J. Xavier Thomas, Shri. N. Abhilash, Shri. Albin Varghese, Shri. M.P. Unnikrishnan, Shri. E.S. Saneej, Smt. Abisha E.R., Smt. Megha G., and Smt. Fathima Shalu S.
Case Title: PAS Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:79840
Case Number: I.A No.2/2025 & SP. JC No.2/2025
Bench: Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim
