Brief Legal News Write-Up
Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills v. Union of India & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 15.06.2026 : Case No.: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 120/2025 : Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4707 : Court: High Court of Delhi : Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
The Court considered a dispute concerning substitution of a party in a trademark rectification petition following an alleged assignment of the disputed trademark during the pendency of the proceedings. The case arose from allegations that Respondent No. 2 assigned the trademark “DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND” to his wife through an Assignment Deed and sought substitution on that basis despite the validity of the trademark being under challenge in rectification proceedings.
The principal question before the Court was whether the assignee could be substituted in place of the registered proprietor when the assignment was under scrutiny and the application for recording the assignment before the Trade Marks Registry remained pending.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Tejas Karia observed that the timing of the assignment, the filing of Form TM-P, and the surrounding circumstances created serious doubts regarding the bona fides of the transaction. The Court held that unless and until the Trade Marks Registry recognizes the assignee as the subsequent proprietor of the mark, substitution in the rectification proceedings would be premature. The Court emphasized that the registered proprietor continued to remain on the Register and that the alleged assignee could not claim substitution merely on the basis of a pending assignment application.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the substitution application while granting liberty to the applicant to seek substitution at an appropriate stage if the assignment is recognized by the Trade Marks Registry in accordance with law.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not treat this as a substitute for legal advise as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.
Delhi High Court Refuses Substitution of Alleged Assignee in Trademark Rectification Proceedings Until Assignment Is Recognized by Trade Marks Registry
Introduction
The Delhi High Court's decision in Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills v. Union of India & Anr. addresses an important procedural issue in trademark litigation concerning assignments executed during the pendency of rectification proceedings. The judgment examines whether an alleged assignee can immediately replace the registered proprietor in pending proceedings solely on the basis of an assignment deed when the assignment has not yet been formally recognized by the Trade Marks Registry.
The ruling is significant for trademark proprietors, assignees, intellectual property practitioners, and businesses involved in trademark transactions. It highlights the importance of registration procedures under trademark law and clarifies that execution of an assignment deed alone may not automatically entitle an assignee to procedural rights in pending litigation.
The judgment also underscores judicial scrutiny of transactions executed during pending disputes, particularly where surrounding circumstances create doubts regarding the genuineness or timing of the transfer.
Factual and Procedural Background
The proceedings arose in a trademark rectification petition concerning the trademark “DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND” bearing Registration No. 5574981 in Class 31. The registered proprietor of the trademark was Respondent No. 2, Mr. Tarsem Chand, sole proprietor of M/s R.D. Traders.
An application was filed by Mrs. Sunita Devi under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking substitution of Respondent No. 2 in the rectification proceedings. Mrs. Sunita Devi is the wife of Respondent No. 2. According to the applicant, Respondent No. 2 had executed an Assignment Deed dated 01.08.2025 assigning all rights in the trademark to her. An application in Form TM-P seeking recording of the assignment was subsequently filed before the Trade Marks Registry on 04.08.2025.
The petitioner opposed the application and relied upon an earlier order dated 25.09.2025 in which the Court had observed that the affidavit filed in support of Form TM-P failed to disclose the pendency of the rectification proceedings and appeared ex facie false. The petitioner further argued that the assignment was executed during the pendency of the rectification proceedings and could not confer enforceable rights upon the applicant.
The applicant contended that neither she nor Respondent No. 2 had knowledge of the rectification proceedings when the assignment was executed. It was submitted that the assignment and filing of the relevant documents before the Trade Marks Registry occurred before Respondent No. 2 became aware of the pending proceedings.
The Court was therefore required to determine whether substitution could be permitted at this stage.
Dispute Before the Court
The central issue before the Court was whether the applicant, claiming rights under an Assignment Deed, could be substituted in place of the registered proprietor in a pending trademark rectification petition.
The petitioner argued that the assignment transaction was suspicious, that the affidavit filed before the Registry failed to disclose the pending rectification proceedings, and that the assignment appeared to be an attempt to avoid the consequences of the challenge to the trademark registration.
The applicant argued that the assignment was a genuine transaction executed before acquiring knowledge of the rectification proceedings. It was contended that the Assignment Deed transferred all rights in the trademark and therefore the applicant should be permitted to step into the shoes of the assignor for purposes of the litigation.
The Court had to consider the legal effect of a pending assignment application and determine whether substitution could be granted before recognition of the assignment by the Trade Marks Registry.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court carefully reviewed the chronology of events surrounding the assignment. The Assignment Deed was executed on 01.08.2025, the supporting affidavit was attested on 02.08.2025, and Form TM-P was filed before the Trade Marks Registry on 04.08.2025. According to Respondent No. 2, he became aware of the rectification proceedings only on 07.08.2025.
The Court noted that its earlier order dated 25.09.2025 had expressed serious reservations regarding the affidavit filed in support of Form TM-P because it failed to disclose the pendency of the rectification proceedings. Although those observations were made in a different procedural context, they remained relevant while assessing the present application.
A significant aspect of the Court’s analysis concerned the surrounding circumstances. The Court observed that the assignment was executed in favour of the assignor’s wife immediately before the first effective hearing in the rectification proceedings. The Court also noted that counsel appeared for Respondent No. 2 on 08.08.2025 despite absence of prior service, yet no disclosure was made regarding the assignment transaction at that stage. These circumstances, according to the Court, created suspicion regarding the explanation advanced by the applicant and Respondent No. 2.
The Court nevertheless focused on a more fundamental legal issue. It observed that the application seeking recording of the assignment through Form TM-P remained pending before the Trade Marks Registry. Consequently, the Register of Trade Marks continued to show Respondent No. 2 as the registered proprietor of the trademark. Until the Registry formally considered and allowed the application for recording the assignment, the applicant could not be treated as the recognized proprietor of the mark.
The Court held that substitution at this stage would therefore be premature. The legal status of the applicant as proprietor remained contingent upon a decision by the Trade Marks Registry. Unless and until the Registry recorded the assignment and recognized the applicant as proprietor, the registered proprietor continued to be the proper party to the proceedings.
The Court thus concluded that the substitution request could not be granted merely on the basis of an Assignment Deed when the statutory process for recording the assignment had not yet been completed.
Final Decision of the Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed the application seeking substitution of Respondent No. 2 by the applicant in the rectification proceedings.
The Court held that Respondent No. 2 continued to remain the registered proprietor of the trademark and that the applicant could not be substituted until the application in Form TM-P was decided by the Trade Marks Registry and the applicant was formally recognized as proprietor.
The Court granted liberty to the applicant to approach the Court again for substitution if and when the assignment is recognized in accordance with law. The rectification petition was directed to be listed for further proceedings on 20.08.2026.
Point of Law Settled
The judgment clarifies that execution of a trademark assignment deed does not automatically entitle an assignee to substitution in pending litigation where the assignment has not yet been recognized by the Trade Marks Registry.
The decision reinforces the principle that the registered proprietor reflected on the Register of Trade Marks continues to enjoy procedural status in legal proceedings until statutory formalities for recording the assignment are completed.
The ruling also demonstrates that courts may closely scrutinize assignments executed during the pendency of trademark disputes, particularly where the timing and surrounding circumstances raise doubts regarding the bona fides of the transaction.
Case Details:
Title of the Case: Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills v. Union of India & Anr.
Date of Judgment/Order: 15.06.2026
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 120/2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:4707
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Justice Tejas Karia
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in Judgement and that the same are for illustrative purpose only. Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Suggested SEO Titles:
Delhi High Court Refuses Substitution Based on Unrecorded Trademark Assignment
Trademark Assignment During Rectification Proceedings: Delhi HC Clarifies Law
Delhi HC Holds Assignee Cannot Replace Registered Proprietor Until Registry Approval
Double Kabootar Brand Trademark Dispute: Key Delhi High Court Ruling
Delhi High Court on Form TM-P and Trademark Assignment Rights
Trademark Rectification Proceedings and Assignment Deeds Explained
Delhi HC Examines Suspicious Trademark Assignment Executed During Litigation
Registered Proprietor Continues Until Assignment Is Recorded, Says Delhi HC
Important Delhi High Court Judgment on Trademark Ownership Transfer
Delhi HC Clarifies Procedural Rights of Trademark Assignees
Trademark Registry Recognition Essential for Substitution in Court Proceedings
Delhi High Court Strengthens Scrutiny of Mid-Litigation Trademark Assignments
Suggested SEO Tags:
Trademark Assignment, Trademark Rectification, Delhi High Court, Double Kabootar Brand, Form TM-P, Trade Marks Registry, Trademark Ownership, Intellectual Property Law, Trademark Litigation, Assignment Deed, Registered Proprietor, Trademark Dispute, IP Litigation India, Trade Marks Act 1999, Trademark Registration, Trademark Transfer, Procedural Law, Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, Trademark Proceedings, Commercial IP Division, Delhi HC Judgment, Trademark Assignment Recording, Proprietorship Dispute, Trademark Registry Procedure, IP Law India, Trademark Jurisprudence, Trademark Appeal, Brand Ownership Dispute, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Headnote of the Judgment:
Anuj Bindal Messrs Aggarwal Rice and Oil Mills v. Union of India & Anr., Delhi High Court, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 120/2025, decided on 15.06.2026. The applicant sought substitution in a pending trademark rectification petition on the basis of an Assignment Deed allegedly transferring ownership of the trademark “DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND” from the registered proprietor to his wife. The Delhi High Court held that the application for recording the assignment through Form TM-P remained pending before the Trade Marks Registry and that the registered proprietor continued to remain on the Register. Finding that substitution would be premature and noting circumstances that raised doubts regarding the transaction, the Court dismissed the substitution application while granting liberty to renew the request if the assignment is subsequently recognized by the Registry.
Infographic Thumbnail Prompt:
Create a professional legal news YouTube thumbnail featuring the Delhi High Court building, trademark registration certificates, legal documents, and the trademark “DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND” prominently displayed. Show a visual representation of a trademark assignment deed being scrutinized by a court. Include bold headlines: “DELHI HC REJECTS SUBSTITUTION”, “TRADEMARK ASSIGNMENT UNDER SCANNER”, and “FORM TM-P DISPUTE”. Add scales of justice, Trade Marks Registry imagery, ownership transfer graphics, court files, and a red stamp reading “SUBSTITUTION DENIED”. Use a professional legal theme with blue, gold, white, and red accents. Emphasize trademark ownership disputes, assignment of trademark rights, rectification proceedings, and registry approval requirements. Include visual cues showing transfer from registered proprietor to alleged assignee with a question mark highlighting pending recognition. Use attached image as Image of lawyer in lawyers dress at left bottom corner which should cover 20 % of entire image area.
No comments:
Post a Comment