Introduction

In a significant case involving PAS Agro Foods and KRBL Limited, the High Court of Kerala recently addressed a trademark dispute concerning the registration of 'INDIA GATE'. The court focused on two key procedural questions in Indian trademark law: which High Court has the authority to hear a rectification petition and when a rectification petition is considered premature. In its decision on October 27, 2025, Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim concluded that the Kerala High Court did not have jurisdiction over the rectification petition related to the "INDIA GATE" trademark, marking the petition as premature. This important ruling offers valuable insights for businesses and legal practitioners dealing with the complexities of rectification and infringement issues under the Trade Marks Act, helping to clarify the procedural landscape in such disputes.

The Petitioner and the Dispute

Pas Agro Foods, a company located in Palakkad, Kerala, recently found itself in a legal dispute with KRBL Limited over trademark rights. The issue arose when KRBL Limited filed a trademark infringement suit against Pas Agro Foods, leading to a temporary injunction and an order for an Advocate Commissioner to seize infringing goods from Pas Agro's premises in Kerala. In response to these actions, Pas Agro Foods decided to file a Special Jurisdiction Case (SP. JC) in the Kerala High Court, seeking to cancel the 'INDIA GATE' trademark registration held by KRBL Limited. However, KRBL Limited countered by challenging the SP. JC's validity, claiming that the case lacked territorial jurisdiction and was premature. It's a rather complex situation, but it highlights the challenges businesses can face in protecting their trademarks.

Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

In a recent case regarding the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts for hearing rectification petitions under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, the Kerala High Court made a significant ruling. The court found that only the Delhi High Court has the authority to handle such petitions, primarily because the trademark "INDIA GATE" was originally registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry. This decision echoed the reasoning from a previous Madras High Court judgment, which established that the sole forum for rectification petitions is the High Court that exercises appellate jurisdiction over the specific Trade Marks Registry where the trademark in question was registered. Notably, the court rejected the idea of establishing jurisdiction based on the 'dynamic effect' of registration—meaning where the petitioner feels the impact, such as in Kerala. The court argued that accepting this principle could lead to chaos and conflicting rulings from different High Courts on the same trademark, ultimately complicating the adjudication process.

 The Case is Premature

The second ground revolves around the procedural requirements set by Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, which specifically addresses the stay of proceedings when the validity of a trademark is contested in an infringement suit. In a recent case, the Kerala High Court concluded that the petitioner's request for rectification was premature. This decision came about because the petition was filed without adhering to the necessary procedures in the ongoing Delhi infringement suit. According to Section 124(1)(ii), when an infringement suit is in progress and no rectification proceedings have been initiated, the party challenging the trademark's validity must first go to the Civil Court. The Civil Court needs to determine if the claim regarding the trademark's invalidity is prima facie tenable. If the court finds this to be the case, it will raise an issue regarding validity and then pause the proceedings for three months to allow the party to file a rectification petition in the High Court. The High Court's reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P. M. Diesels Ltd. highlights how important it is for the Civil Court to conduct this initial assessment to avoid nonsensical or unfounded invalidity claims that could disrupt the infringement suit.

Since the petitioner had not yet obtained a finding from the Delhi District Court regarding the prima facie tenability of the invalidity plea, the rectification petition was held to be not maintainable.

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

Summary table

Court's Decision

The court dismissed the Special Jurisdiction Case due to lack of jurisdiction and prematurity, aligning with the principles that emphasize avoiding jurisdictional chaos and ensuring preliminary issues are settled in lower courts before approaching a High Court.

Conclusion

The conclusion of the case underscores the critical importance of jurisdictional boundaries within rectification proceedings as stipulated by the Trade Marks Act. It emphasizes the necessity for strict adherence to procedural requirements, thereby ensuring that all parties involved follow the established protocols. This decision serves as a cautionary reminder against the potential complications that may arise from initiating multiple proceedings in various High Courts. Such actions could result in conflicting rulings, which would create confusion and undermine the legal process. By reinforcing these limits, the ruling aims to promote consistency and clarity in trademark rectification matters, ultimately safeguarding the integrity of the legal system.