This article analyzes the power and discretion of the High Court of Delhi to
consolidate suit proceedings pending before the District Court, Delhi,
cancellation proceedings pending before the Registrar of Trademarks, and appeal
proceedings before the High Court, with reference to the Intellectual Property
Division Rules, 2022. The High Court's reliance on a previous judgment and its
reasoning for consolidation is also explored. This article examines the
implications of such consolidation to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and
The consolidation of legal proceedings is a procedural mechanism used to
streamline and unify multiple related cases before a single court for efficient
adjudication. The High Court of Delhi recently exercised its power of
consolidation under Rule 26 of the Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022,
while considering an appeal concerning the cancellation of a trademark
The Hon'ble High Court noticed that several related trademark
matters were pending before different forums, creating a potential for
conflicting decisions. This article explores the High Court's authority to
consolidate such proceedings and the rationale behind its decision.
The subject matter of the appeal pertained to the trademark "SDHP," which was
canceled by the Registrar of Trademarks, leading to the filing of an appeal
before the High Court. However, the High Court observed that there were other
connected proceedings on the same trademarks pending in different forums,
The Judicial Precedent:
- C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 1/2023 titled Romil Gupta Trading as Sohan Lal Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr before the High Court.
- CS (COMM) 117/2019 titled M/s Landmark Crafts Private Limited v. M/s Sohan Lal Gupta through its Proprietor Sh. Romil Gupta before the ld. ADJ (Commercial Court) Karkardooma Court.
- Rectification Application 266607 titled Romil Gupta Trading as M/s Sohan Lal Gupta v. Landmark Crafts Private Limited before the Registrar of Trade Marks.
In its decision to consolidate the proceedings, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
relied on the judgment in Jumeirah Beach Resort LLC v. Designarch Consultants
Pvt. Ltd. (C.O (COMM-IPD-TM) 124/2022, order dated 28th November 2022). In the
cited case, the court had dealt with the issue of consolidation of proceedings
under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the IP Division Rules, 2022. The court had
held that there was no impediment to directing the transfer of related matters
to itself to avoid conflicting rulings, especially when other connected
petitions were already pending before the court.
The Power of Consolidation under IP Division Rules:
Rule 26 of the IP Division Rules, 2022, confers the High Court with the power to
consolidate related proceedings. The rule allows the court to transfer matters
pending before different forums to itself for unified adjudication. This
authority is exercised to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, save time, and
ensure consistent decisions on related issues. The overarching objective is to
promote efficiency and prevent conflicting outcomes in cases involving the same
Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, empowers the High Court to make rules
consistent with the Act for regulating its own practice and procedure. Rule 26
of the IP Division Rules, 2022, is framed in consonance with this section, and
it enables the High Court to consolidate connected trademark proceedings before
different forums to ensure a coherent and unified resolution.
The Rationale for Consolidation:
In the present case, the High Court of Delhi exercised its discretionary power
to consolidate the proceedings involving the trademark "SDHP." By doing so, the
court aimed to:
- Avoid Multiplicity of Proceedings: Consolidation helps prevent the duplication of evidence, arguments, and judicial efforts that would arise if each case is decided separately.
- Ensure Consistent Rulings: By centralizing the related matters before a single court, the risk of conflicting decisions is minimized, leading to a more coherent and predictable legal landscape.
- Promote Efficiency: Consolidation expedites the resolution of disputes by streamlining the judicial process, reducing delays, and preventing unnecessary litigation.
- Judicial Economy: Consolidation is conducive to the prudent use of judicial resources, saving time and effort for the court, parties, and legal practitioners.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in its wisdom, exercised its power and
discretion under Rule 26 of the IP Division Rules and Section 125 of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999, to consolidate the trademark-related proceedings pending before
different forums. This decision was driven by the desire to avoid multiplicity
of proceedings and conflicting rulings, thereby promoting judicial efficiency
The consolidation of the proceedings concerning the trademark "SDHP"
before the High Court ensures that all aspects of the dispute can be
holistically considered, leading to a more comprehensive and just resolution of
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Romil Gupta Trading as Sohan Lal Gupta Vs Registrar of Trade
Marks and another
Date of Judgement:24.07.2023
Case No.CA Comm IPD TM 01 of 2023
Name of Hon'ble Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge:Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same
should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my
subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and
presentation of the facts and law involved herein.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Email: [email protected]
, Ph no: 9990389539