The issue of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against a judgment
passed by the High Court in a Trademark Rectification Petition has been a matter
of contention. This article analyzes the recent case post Resilient Innovations
Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr
[2023:DHC:3426-DB] and subsequent
developments that affirm the maintainability of such appeals.
The case in question involved the dismissal of a rectification petition of a
trademark by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. The respondent challenged
the judgment by contending that the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court in
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr
consider the scope of Limitation put by Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act
2015 to Appeals, particularly with reference to Letters Patent Appeal.
Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr:
In Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonepe Private Limited & Anr
, the Delhi
High Court answered the issue of maintainability of an LPA against a judgment
passed by the High Court in a rectification petition, in affirmative. However,
the respondent argued that this judgment failed to consider the provisions of
Section 13 of the Commercial Court Act 2015, which seemingly restricts any other
intra-Court appeal, beyond the provision of Order 43 CPC.
The Hon'ble High Court's Ruling:
The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in the present case,
reaffirmed its earlier judgment in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonepe
Private Limited & Anr and held that an LPA against the judgment of a Single
Judge in a Trademark Rectification Petition is maintainable, albeit
supplementing with reasoning , as left out in Resilient Judgement.
The Division Bench elucidated that the bar under Section 13 of the Commercial
Court Act 2015 does not apply to judgments passed by Single Judges of the High
Court in a Rectification Petition under Section 57 of Trade Marks Act 1999[ TMA].
The rationale behind this conclusion lies in the nature of jurisdiction
exercised by a Judge in the Commercial Division while entertaining a petition
under Section 57 of TMA. Section 57 enables any aggrieved person to seek
cancellation or variation of a registered trademark before the High Court or the
The power vested in the High Court under Section 57 is a specific authority
conferred by the TMA and not derived from its existing ordinary original civil
jurisdiction. Hence, when the High Court entertains a petition under Section 57,
it does so solely through the avenue created by the TMA, rather than its general
Furthermore, the Court referred to Section 13(1A) of the 2015 Act, which
specifically mentions a judgment or order rendered by a commercial court
exercising "original civil jurisdiction." Since the power exercised by the
Commercial Division under Section 57 is not traceable to its original
jurisdiction, appeals against judgments or orders not arising from the exercise
of original jurisdiction would not be governed by Section 13 of the 2015 Act.
The Concluding Note:
The Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, through its reaffirmation of
the earlier judgment in Resilient Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonepe Private
Limited & Anr, has clarified the maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals
against judgments passed by the High Court in Trademark Rectification Petitions.
The Court's reasoning underscores the distinction between the jurisdiction
exercised under Section 57 of the TMA and the general civil jurisdiction of the
Commercial Division, thus confirming the viability of such Letters Patent
The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: V R Holding Vs Heo Investcorp Limited
Date of Judgement/Order:04.08.2023
Case No. LPA 397 of 2023
Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC : 5458
Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Yashwant Varma , H.J. and Dharmesh Sharma HJ
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