Introdution

In the complex realm of intellectual property law, the jurisdictional boundaries and procedural requirements for trademark rectification play a pivotal role. The recent case of PAS Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited, I.A No.2/2025 & SPJC 2/2025, decided by the Kerala High Court on October 27, 2025, postulates essential principles around the maintainability of rectification petitions in light of concurrent infringement suits. This blog aims to unpack the court's findings, implications for trademark holders, and the broader legal landscape governing rectification proceedings. The case involves a dispute between PAS Agro Foods, the petitioner, and KRBL Limited, a well-known player in the food industry. PAS Agro sought cancellation of KRBL’s registered trademark "INDIA GATE". The petitioner filed their rectification petition in the Kerala High Court in February 2025, shortly after KRBL initiated an infringement suit in New Delhi in January 2025, obtaining an interim injunction against PAS Agro. The primary relief sought by PAS Agro was under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. However, the maintainability of their petition was challenged by KRBL, primarily on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction and the timeliness of the filing, given the pending infringement lawsuit.

Key Issues Addressed by the Court

Two core issues emerged at the outset of the judicial proceedings:

·       Territorial Jurisdiction: Whether the Kerala High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the rectification petition concerning the "INDIA GATE" trademark that is registered with the Delhi trademark registry.

·       Prematurity of the Petition: Whether a rectification petition is appropriate given that no invalidity issue had been framed in the ongoing infringement suit under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act.

Court’s Findings

·       Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction

The court emphatically stated that the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the appropriate Trade Marks Registry (in this case, the Delhi Registry) is the designated forum for hearing rectification applications under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act. Citing the need for a unified legal approach to avoid conflicting decisions, the court rejected the petition on these grounds. This decision aligns with prior case law, particularly the ruling in Woltop India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, 2025:MHC:485, which emphasized that jurisdiction should adhere strictly to the registry's geographical placement. The implication of this decision is significant that the trademark holders must be acutely aware of where their trademarks are registered, as challenges to their validity must be directed to the corresponding High Court where the registry is located.

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

·       Prematurity of the Petition

On the issue of prematurity, the court applied principles from Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC 112, asserting that if no rectification proceeding is pending at the time of the suit's filing, parties must first secure a finding from the civil court. Specifically, the trial court should affirm a prima facie tenable plea of invalidity and frame an issue under Section 124(1)(ii) before rectification can be pursued. Since this process had not occurred in PAS Agro's case, the court ruled the rectification petition as premature. This outcome reinforces the hierarchical nature of the legal process in trademark disputes. It stipulates that parties must navigate initial judicial findings before engaging in the rectification process, ensuring that challenges to the validity of trademarks are adequately substantiated in ongoing infringement litigation.

Implications of the Decision

The Kerala High Court's decision elucidates several critical implications for parties involved in intellectual property disputes:

·       Clarification of Jurisdictional Boundaries: This case underscores the need for clear jurisdictional understanding based on trademark registry locations, which could significantly affect where parties choose to file their cases.

·       Procedural Requirements for Rectification: The decision highlights the necessity of having a framed issue of invalidity from an infringement suit before seeking rectification. This procedural rigor aims to prevent frivolous claims and ensures that disputes are adequately vetted by the courts.

·       Avoidance of Parallel Proceedings: The decision advocates for a more organized approach to trademark litigation, as it discourages conflicting outcomes from different High Courts through strict consolidation of rectification claims at the appropriate registry.

·       Interim Relief Considerations: The decision provides clarity on the interplay between interim relief granted during an infringement suit and subsequent rectification petitions. If a stay is in place under Section 124 of the 1999 Act, interim remedies may continue, which is integral for defendants in infringement suits seeking to maintain their business continuity during litigation.

Next Steps for the Parties Involved

For PAS Agro Foods

Engage with the New Delhi Court: PAS Agro must petition the New Delhi commercial court to frame an invalidity issue under Section 124(1)(ii). Securing this framing is crucial for their subsequent rectification filing in the Delhi High Court, where they will have to substantiate their claims against KRBL's trademark.

For KRBL Limited

Maintain the Existing Injunction: KRBL should seek to uphold the interim injunction while simultaneously opposing any efforts by PAS Agro to frame an invalidity issue should it lack prima facie merit. Relying on established legal precedents will be vital in these proceedings.

For Both Sides

Monitor the Larger Bench Reference: Both parties should keep track of any developments regarding the larger bench reference concerning the Hershey case, as the outcomes may influence future interpretations of related legal principles.

Conclusion

The case of PAS Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited stands as a significant decision in trademark law, particularly in the context of jurisdiction and the procedural prerequisites for challenging trademark validity. As the legal landscape evolves, trademark holders must navigate these waters with a keen understanding of their rights and the procedural intricacies at play. This case serves as a reminder that in the world of intellectual property, knowledge of jurisdictional nuances and adherence to procedural norms is essential for protecting one's trademarks effectively. In a domain where the stakes can be exceedingly high, staying informed and strategically briefing through the legal framework remains paramount. As we continue to observe developments in trademark litigation, this case will undoubtedly influence future cases and shape best practices in the protection of trademark rights.