A 5-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court Today (March 13th) appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda as amicus curiae to aid the Court in determining its jurisdiction regarding rectification/cancellation petitions filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today, a distinguished 5-judge Bench of the Delhi High Court took a significant step by appointing Senior Advocate Gaurav Pachnanda as amicus curiae. His role is to provide expert legal insight to assist the Court in resolving a complex jurisdictional question under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Bench, led by Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru, Sanjeev Narula, Tara Vitasta Ganju, and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, is tasked with a nuanced legal issue:
Determining the appropriate jurisdiction for filing cancellation petitions under the Trademarks Act.
The core of the debate is whether such petitions should exclusively be filed before a High Court in the region where the Trade Mark Registry that issued the registrations is located, or whether they can also be filed in jurisdictions where the petitioner experiences the adverse effects of the said registration.
The Court convened in the afternoon to deliberate on the five interconnected cases. Acknowledging the complexity and the legal significance of the matter at hand, the Bench decided to enlist the expertise of Pachnanda as amicus curiae (an impartial adviser to a court of law in a particular case).
The judges have directed the involved parties to submit concise written arguments and relevant judicial decisions within three weeks. The case is scheduled for further examination in May 2024.
This issue was escalated to the larger bench following a divergence in judicial opinion. Justice Prathiba M Singh, in a judgment dated February 9, 2024, expressed disagreement with the stance taken by Justice C Hari Shankar in the Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd v. Fast Cure Pharma case. In that judgment, it was concluded that rectification petitions could be filed not only in the High Courts of the regions where the Trade Mark Registry offices are located but also in jurisdictions where the contested registration’s effects are felt by the petitioner.
Justice Singh referred several pivotal questions to the larger bench for resolution:
- “Whether the decision of the ld. Full Bench in Girdhari Lal Gupta v K Gian Chand Jain rendered under the Designs Act, 1911, would be applicable in the context of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as amended by the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, for determining jurisdiction of a High Court under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act?”
- “Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 would be determined on the basis of the Appropriate office of the Trade Mark Registry, which granted the impugned trade mark registration?”
- “Whether the expression ‘the High Court’ can be differently construed in Sections 47, 57, and 91 of the Trade Marks Act?”
These questions aim to clarify the jurisdictional boundaries for filing rectification or cancellation petitions under the Trade Marks Act, thereby addressing a critical aspect of intellectual property law in India.
CASE TITLE:
The Hershey Company v. Dilip Kumar Bacha, Trading as Shree Ganesh Namkeen & Anr, along with other connected matters.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Trade Marks Act
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
