Delhi High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Order Passed by the Supreme Court in Rectification Petition of Case Against M/s Jain Industries

Must Read

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and...

Follow us

On 9th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Justice Vibhu Bakhru heard the case of P.M. Diesels Pvt Ltd v. Thukral Mechanical Works and Ors.

The petitioner had filed the present writ petition impugning an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) whereby the application filed by the petitioner to implead M/s Jain Industries as a respondent to the rectification petition filed by it, was rejected.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and claimed that it was engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and exporting diesel oil engines and its parts since 1963. The petitioner claimed that it adopted the trademark ‘Fieldmarshal’ for its products. The petitioner further started manufacturing and selling monoblock pumps and motors including centrifugal pumps and their parts under the said trademark in or around 1973. 

Thukral Mechanical Works Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is also engaged in a similar business. In 1985, the petitioner filed a suit against Thukral alleging infringement and passing off and praying for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining Thukral from using the trademark ‘Fieldmarshal’ or any other mark or tradename similar to it. The Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction against Thukral, restraining it from using the said mark.

Contentions of the Petitioner

Mr Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the IPAB had erred in proceedings on the basis that the decision of the Supreme Court restricted the discretion of IPAB to implead M/s Jain Industries to decide the issue of a non-user in accordance with the law.

He further submitted that the petitioner could not be faulted for not impleading M/s Jain Industries in the first instance as the Supreme Court had in its decision, for the first time, observed that where an allegation of trafficking was made, both the original registrant as well as assignee are required to be impleaded as a party.

Mr Chander Lall, the learned senior counsel who also appeared for the petitioner, contended that the import of the said order directing the IPAB to consider afresh in terms of the principles laid down in the said decision would also be to consider impleading such parties as are held to be necessary and proper in such proceedings.

Court’s Analysis

The Court opined that the petitioner’s application for rectification of the trademark solely on the ground that M/s Jain Industries had not used the said trademark for a period of five years and one month after its registration was not sustainable. The observations made by the Supreme Court that a petition for rectification of registration on account of or non-use by the assignor would not be maintainable without impleading the assignor was in the context where the petitioner also challenged the assignment as being mala fide and with the view to frustrate the provisions of Section 46(1)(b) of the Act.

Court’s Decision

The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and thus the petition was dismissed.

The petitioner’s contention that it had become necessary to implead M/s Jain Industries, only on account of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter, was erroneous as the observations made by the Supreme Court were in the context of the petitioner’s ground regarding non-use of the trademark and the allegations that it had been fraudulently transferred.

Click here to read the judgment.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

UAPA Cannot Be Used When the Accused Does Not Have an Active Knowledge of the Offence: Delhi High Court

Justice Suresh Kumar Kait held that the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act cannot be charged on the accused when he does not have any knowledge...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -