Introduction

The decision of the Bombay High Court in Anil Shah Trading as Le Shark India v. Le Shark Apparel Limited offers an important clarification on the scope of appeals under commercial law as well as the nature of trademark rectification proceedings. While the dispute originated from a challenge to a registered trademark, the core legal question before the Division Bench was procedural yet highly significant: whether an order passed in rectification proceedings amounts to a “judgement” or “decree” and is therefore appealable under the Commercial Courts Act.

The ruling brings clarity on how courts should interpret final decisions in intellectual property disputes, especially when such proceedings are not initiated through traditional suits.

Factual And Procedural Background

The dispute arose when Le Shark Apparel Limited, a foreign entity, sought rectification of a trademark registered in India in the name of Anil Shah trading as Le Shark India.

The respondent alleged that the registered mark had not been genuinely used and that its adoption was dishonest. It was further claimed that the supporting documents relied upon by the registered proprietor were not reliable and did not establish real commercial use of the mark.

The rectification application was initially filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, but after institutional changes, the matter came to be decided by the High Court.

The learned Single Judge, after examining the material on record, concluded that the trademark registration suffered from lack of bona fide use and appeared to be dishonestly adopted.

Exercising powers under the Trade Marks Act, the court ordered removal of the mark from the register in order to maintain the purity of the trademark registry.

Key Findings Of The Single Judge

• The trademark lacked bona fide commercial use.
• The adoption of the mark appeared dishonest.
• The supporting evidence was considered unreliable.
• The mark was ordered to be removed from the trademark register.

Aggrieved by this decision, the registered proprietor filed an appeal before the Division Bench under the Commercial Courts Act.

However, the respondent raised a preliminary objection questioning whether such an appeal was maintainable at all.

Core Dispute Before The Division Bench

The central dispute before the Division Bench was not directly about trademark rights but about the maintainability of the appeal itself.

The question was whether the order passed by the Single Judge in rectification proceedings could be treated as a “judgment” or “decree” so as to permit an appeal under the Commercial Courts Act.

Arguments Raised By The Respondent

• Appeals under the Commercial Courts Act are limited in scope.
• Only specific categories of orders or decrees are appealable.
• The rectification order did not fall within the appealable categories.
• The appeal should therefore be dismissed at the threshold.

Arguments Raised By The Appellant

• The order finally determined the rights of the parties.
• The decision effectively concluded the rectification proceedings.
• The order therefore qualified as a judgement capable of appeal.

Important Legal Issues

Legal Issue	Question Before The Court
Maintainability Of Appeal	Whether an appeal could be filed against a rectification order under the Commercial Courts Act.
Nature Of Rectification Proceedings	Whether trademark rectification proceedings are equivalent to civil suits for appellate purposes.
Status Of The Order	Whether the Single Judge’s order amounted to a “judgment” or “decree”.

Significance Of The Ruling

The ruling is significant because it clarifies the procedural framework governing intellectual property disputes under commercial law.

It highlights the importance of determining whether a final order in trademark rectification proceedings can be treated as an appealable judgment, even when the proceedings are not initiated through conventional civil suits.

The decision also contributes to the broader jurisprudence on the interpretation of the Commercial Courts Act and reinforces the need for clarity in appellate mechanisms involving intellectual property rights.

Reasoning And Analysis Of The Division Bench

The Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework and judicial precedents to resolve the issue. It began by explaining the distinction between a “judgement”, “decree”, and “order” under the Code of Civil Procedure. A decree is understood as a final determination of rights in a suit, while an order may not necessarily conclude the dispute. A judgement, on the other hand, is the reasoning that supports either a decree or an order.

Difference Between Judgement, Decree, And Order

Legal Term	Meaning Under CPC	Key Feature
Judgement	The reasoning given by the court	Forms the basis of a decree or order
Decree	Final determination of rights in a suit	Conclusively decides the dispute
Order	Decision of the court that may not finally determine rights	Can be interim or procedural

Analysis Of Section 13 Of The Commercial Courts Act

The Court then analysed Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, which allows appeals from judgements and orders of commercial courts. It referred to the Supreme Court decision in MITC Rolling Private Limited v. Renuka Realtors & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2375, where it was held that the provision for appeal must be interpreted in a manner that gives full effect to its language and that the proviso restricting appeals against certain orders cannot be used to narrow the broader right of appeal against judgements.

• Section 13 permits appeals from judgements and orders of commercial courts.
• The Supreme Court favoured a broad interpretation of appellate rights.
• The proviso cannot restrict the wider statutory right of appeal.

Reference To Bombay High Court Precedent

The court also considered the earlier Bombay High Court ruling in Skil-Himachal Infrastructure & Tourism Ltd v. IL&FS Financial Services Ltd, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 3152, which had interpreted the scope of appeals under the Commercial Courts Act. However, the Division Bench clarified that the interpretation in that case did not mean that appeals were confined only to decrees in a strict sense.

Nature Of The Impugned Order

In examining the nature of the impugned order, the Court observed that although the proceedings were styled as a miscellaneous petition for rectification, the outcome had conclusively determined the rights of the parties. The order directed removal of the trademark from the register, which effectively ended the dispute between the parties on that issue.

• The rectification proceedings resulted in final adjudication.
• The trademark removal order conclusively settled the dispute.
• The Court treated the order as having the character of a final judgement.

Distinction From Earlier Precedents

The court distinguished other precedents such as Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar, (1953) 1 SCC 167, and Madhavprasad Kalkaprasad Nigam v. S.G. Chandraverkar, 1950 ILR Bom 326, by noting that those cases dealt with situations where the orders did not finally resolve the dispute. In contrast, the present case involved a complete and final adjudication.

Case	Nature Of Order	Whether Final Adjudication
Nalinakhya Bysack v. Shyam Sunder Haldar	Non-final order	No
Madhavprasad Kalkaprasad Nigam v. S.G. Chandraverkar	Order not conclusively determining rights	No
Present Case	Trademark rectification order	Yes

Purpose Of The Commercial Courts Act

The Court emphasised that the Commercial Courts Act is designed to deal with a wide range of commercial disputes, whether arising from suits, applications, or other proceedings. Therefore, restricting appeals only to traditional decrees would defeat the purpose of the legislation.

• The Commercial Courts Act covers diverse commercial disputes.
• Commercial litigation may arise from suits, applications, or miscellaneous proceedings.
• A narrow interpretation of appeal provisions would undermine legislative intent.

Final Decision of the Court

The Division Bench rejected the preliminary objection and held that the appeal was maintainable. It concluded that the order passed by the single judge amounted to a final adjudication of the rights of the parties and therefore qualified as a judgement or decree within the meaning of the law. The court directed that the appeal be listed for further hearing on merits.

Point of Law Settled

The judgement settles that an order passed in trademark rectification proceedings, even if arising from an application and not a suit, can be treated as a judgement or decree if it conclusively determines the rights of the parties. Such an order is appealable under the Commercial Courts Act.

The decision reinforces that the substance of the adjudication, rather than the form of proceedings, determines the availability of appellate remedies.

Key Legal Principles

• Trademark rectification orders may qualify as a judgement or decree.
• Final determination of rights is the key test for appealability.
• The nature of adjudication is more important than the procedural form.
• Appeals under the Commercial Courts Act depend on substantive legal effect.

Case Details

Particulars	Details
Title	Anil Shah Trading as Le Shark India & Anr. Vs. Le Shark Apparel Limited & Anr.
Date of Order	18 April 2026
Case Number	Commercial Appeal (L) No. 40525 of 2025
Court	High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Commercial Appellate Division)
Judges	Hon’ble Justice Bharati Dangre and Hon’ble Justice Manjusha Deshpande

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi