The interpretation and application of Section 124 of the Trademarks Act 1999, particularly concerning the reliance on third-party rectification petitions in suit proceedings, have been a subject of legal scrutiny. This article delves into a recent case where the High Court examined whether a party in a suit proceeding could invoke Section 124 based on a third-party rectification petition.

Background:
In the case at hand, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting their application under Section 124(1) of the Trademarks Act 1999. The petitioner, defendant No.1 in the suit, sought a stay of the proceedings based on a third-party rectification petition filed against the plaintiff's registered trademark.

Legal Analysis:
The core issue revolved around whether the petitioner could rely on the third-party rectification petition to seek a stay of the suit proceedings under Section 124. The plaintiff argued that since the rectification application was filed by a third party, not a party to the suit, Section 124 was inapplicable.

However, the High Court rejected this contention and emphasized the language of Section 124 and Section 57 of the Trademarks Act 1999. Section 57 allows any aggrieved person to file a rectification application against the registration of a trademark. On the other hand, Section 124 provides for a stay of proceedings if an application for rectification is pending.

The court noted that Section 124 does not explicitly require the applicant seeking a stay to be a party to the suit or the one who filed the rectification application. Instead, it focuses on the existence of an application for rectification, irrespective of the applicant's identity. The key consideration is whether there is an ongoing rectification proceeding related to the trademark in question.

Conclusion:
The case underscores the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in accordance with their language and legislative intent. It clarifies that Section 124 of the Trademarks Act 1999 can be invoked based on a third-party rectification petition, provided there is an ongoing rectification proceeding concerning the trademark in question. This interpretation ensures that the statutory objective of protecting the integrity of trademarks is upheld, irrespective of the identity of the rectification applicant.

Case Title: Therelek Machine Pvt. Ltd. Vs Therelek Engineers Pvt. Ltd.
Order Date: 28.02.2024
Case No. WP No. 28029 of 2023
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Court: Karnatak High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anant Ramanath Hegde H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest and the same are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.This article is meant for informational purposes only and should not be construed as substitute for legal advice. Readers are advised to consult with a qualified attorney for legal guidance on specific matters.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539