{"id":9178,"date":"2025-09-26T10:04:30","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T10:04:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=9178"},"modified":"2025-09-26T10:09:50","modified_gmt":"2025-09-26T10:09:50","slug":"territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification\/","title":{"rendered":"Territorial Jurisdiction in Trademark Rectification"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer rectification petitions pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad, to the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Madras High Court. The aim was to consolidate and ensure speedy disposal alongside an existing civil suit.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification\/#Procedure\" >Procedure<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification\/#Examination_by_Court\" >Examination by Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/territorial-jurisdiction-in-trademark-rectification\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The petitioner filed civil suit C.S.(Comm.Div.) No. 199 of 2023 alleging trademark infringement and passing off. Two rectification petitions, numbered 272370 and 272372, were pending before the Ahmedabad Registrar concerning trademark registrations in classes 27 and 35.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner requested transfer of these rectification petitions to the IPD of the Madras High Court for consolidation with the civil suit, citing risks of multiplicity, delay, and conflicting judgments. Despite a letter dated 30.05.2024 invoking Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, no action was taken, leading to the filing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedure\"><\/span>Procedure<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The maintainability of the writ petitions was questioned. The petitioner argued that consolidation was justified under Rule 14(1) of the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2023. They maintained that neither Article 139A of the Constitution nor Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred this remedy. It was further argued that the High Court\u2019s power under Article 226 extends where a cause of action arises, irrespective of the authority\u2019s location.<\/p>\n<p>In opposition, the respondents contended that jurisdiction rested with the High Court having appellate jurisdiction over the Registrar\u2019s office under Rule 4 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. They argued that the petitions should have been filed in the Gujarat High Court. They denied the existence of any stay application in the civil suit and emphasized that only the territorially competent High Court could handle rectification petitions, cautioning against judicial overreach under Article 226.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Examination_by_Court\"><\/span>Examination by Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court examined the Trade Marks Act, particularly Sections 47 and 57, amended by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. It highlighted the deliberate use of the definite article <i>\u201cthe\u201d<\/i> before \u201cHigh Court,\u201d showing Parliament\u2019s intent to assign jurisdiction to a specific High Court tied to a Registrar\u2019s office. This was contrasted with the use of the indefinite article <i>\u201ca\u201d<\/i> in other contexts.<\/p>\n<p>The Court reaffirmed Rule 4 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, which sets territorial jurisdiction of registry offices. Since the registered proprietor\u2019s main business was in Surat, Gujarat, the appropriate Registry was Ahmedabad, placing jurisdiction with the Gujarat High Court.<\/p>\n<p>Citing <i>Adiuvo Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. v. University Health Network<\/i> (2024 SCC OnLine Mad 185), the Court clarified that while writ jurisdiction may not be restricted by Patent Office location, rectification under the TM Act involves statutory jurisdiction tied to territorial nexus. Allowing otherwise would create chaos and conflicting rulings.<\/p>\n<p>The Court rejected reliance on Rule 14(1) of the Madras High Court IPD Rules, holding that it does not permit cross-fora consolidation. It emphasized Section 124 of the TM Act, which provides for stay of suits pending rectification, thereby avoiding conflict without requiring transfers.<\/p>\n<p>The Court noted contrary views in <i>Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Sharma<\/i> and <i>Dr. Reddy\u2019s Laboratories Ltd. v. Fast Cure Pharma<\/i>, but since those orders were stayed by the Supreme Court, the Court declined to follow them.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court ruled that the Madras High Court lacked jurisdiction under Sections 47 and 57 of the TM Act over rectification petitions before the Ahmedabad Registrar. It held that writ petitions are discretionary and cannot override statutory jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the petitions but left open the option to approach the Gujarat High Court for speedy disposal of rectification petitions. No costs were awarded.<\/p>\n<p>This judgment clarifies territorial jurisdiction and highlights the balance between constitutional writ powers and statutory remedies. It underscores respecting jurisdictional boundaries to prevent conflicting rulings and maintain orderly administration of justice.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Case Title:<\/b> Woltop India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others<\/li>\n<li><b>Order Date:<\/b> 20th February 2025<\/li>\n<li><b>Case Number:<\/b> W.P.(IPD) Nos. 30 &amp; 32 of 2024<\/li>\n<li><b>Neutral Citation:<\/b> 2025:MHC:485<\/li>\n<li><b>Court:<\/b> High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/li>\n<li><b>Judge:<\/b> The Honourable Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:<\/b>\u00a0The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By:\u00a0Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/b> IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The petition sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to transfer rectification petitions pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad, to the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) of the Madras High Court. The aim was to consolidate and ensure speedy disposal alongside an existing civil suit. Facts The petitioner filed civil suit C.S.(Comm.Div.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-9178","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9178","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9178"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9178\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9178"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9178"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9178"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}