Friday, December 19, 2025

Shri Surinder Kumar Vs The Registrar of Copyrights

Rahul Khanna filed a suit in 2016 before the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, seeking injunction against Surinder Kumar for passing off and copyright infringement involving the trademark 'PRAKASH' and artistic label for PVC electrical insulation tape, along with damages and accounts rendition, with evidence completed and matter listed for final arguments on December 17, 2025, while Surinder Kumar filed a counterclaim for injunction against Rahul Khanna for similar passing off and copyright violation. Surinder Kumar also filed a rectification petition originally in 2016 before the Copyright Board (later transferred to IPAB and then to Delhi High Court as C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2024) seeking cancellation of Rahul Khanna's copyright registration No. A-115513/2016. Surinder Kumar filed a transfer petition under Section 24 CPC read with Rule 26 of IPD Rules, 2022, arguing commonality of issues and need for consolidation to avoid conflicting decisions. Rahul Khanna opposed, contending Rule 26 applies only to commercial courts and the suit being non-commercial (valued below Rs. 3 lakhs) with advanced stage precludes transfer. The High Court held that while Rule 26 specifies transfer from commercial courts, Section 24 CPC provides general power to transfer any subordinate court matter, including non-commercial IPR suits, to itself at any stage to prevent multiplicity and contradictions, and finding overlap with no prejudice from transfer as evidence was closed, allowed the petition, transferred the suit and counterclaim to itself for consolidation with the rectification petition.
High Court has power under Section 24 CPC to transfer non-commercial IPR suits pending before District Courts to itself for consolidation with related rectification petitions, irrespective of Rule 26 of IPD Rules, 2022 limiting explicit mention to commercial courts, as Section 24 confers general transfer authority to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions (Paras 7-18).
Relied on Patola Industries v. Mahesh Namkeen Pvt. Ltd., C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 187/2021 (Para 2.2); M/s Loreal India Private Limited v. M/s Pornsricharoenpun Co. Ltd., CS(COMM) 496/2023 (Para 2.6); Distinguished Sonani Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Mr. Sanjay Jayanthbai Patel, C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 880/2022 (Para 21) and Fox & Mandal v. Somabrata Mandal, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 8007 (Para 20).

Case Title: Shri Surinder Kumar Vs The Registrar of Copyrights 
Order Date: December 4, 2025
Case Number: C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 5/2024 & TR.P.(C.) 146/2024
Neutral Citation: Not available in the order
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Judge: Tejas Karia, J.
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]

No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured Post

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING

WHETHER THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK IS REQUIRED TO BE SUMMONED IN A CIVIL SUIT TRIAL PROCEEDING IN ORDER TO PROVE THE TRADEMARK  REGISTRA...

My Blog List

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

IPR UPDATE BY ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN

Search This Blog