Case Title: Pas Agro Foods Vs. KRBL Limited & Ors.
Case Number: SP.JC No. 2 of 2025 with I.A. No. 2 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:79840
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2025
Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
Hon’ble Judge: Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim
---
Facts
The case arises out of a commercial dispute between Pas Agro Foods, a partnership firm based in Palakkad, Kerala, and KRBL Limited, a well-known company headquartered in Delhi, which owns the registered trademark “INDIA GATE” for rice and related food products. KRBL Limited obtained ownership of this mark through an assignment deed dated 6 August 2019, from Mr. Ram Pratap, who had initially registered the trademark in 1993 with the Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi.
Pas Agro Foods, claiming to be affected by the said registration, filed a Special Jurisdiction Case (SP.JC No. 2 of 2025) before the Kerala High Court under Section 57 read with Sections 124 and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 50 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petition sought cancellation of KRBL’s trademark registration of “INDIA GATE”.
Before this filing, KRBL had already instituted C.S. (Comm) No. 78/2025 before the District Court (Commercial) at Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, alleging trademark infringement by Pas Agro Foods. On 21 January 2025, the Delhi court granted an interim injunction restraining the use of “INDIA GATE” by Pas Agro and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to seize infringing goods and materials. Acting on that order, the Advocate Commissioner, assisted by police, seized goods bearing the “INDIA GATE” name from Pas Agro’s premises in Kerala on 27 January 2025.
Subsequently, Pas Agro filed the present rectification petition before the Kerala High Court on 7 February 2025, and later applied before the Delhi District Court to stay the infringement suit till the disposal of this rectification case.
---
Procedural Background
KRBL Limited challenged the maintainability of Pas Agro’s rectification case by filing I.A. No. 2 of 2025, raising two main objections:
1. The Kerala High Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain a rectification petition concerning a trademark registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry.
2. The petition is premature, as no issue of invalidity has yet been framed by the Delhi District Court under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act.
The Kerala High Court decided to address the maintainability issue as a preliminary matter before proceeding further into the merits of the rectification claim.
---
Core Dispute
The legal dispute centered on two important jurisdictional and procedural questions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
1. Whether a High Court other than the one exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry (where the mark was registered) can entertain a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Act.
2. Whether a rectification petition is maintainable before an issue of invalidity is framed in a pending infringement suit under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act.
These issues have significant implications for uniformity and procedural coherence in intellectual property litigation across Indian High Courts.
---
Detailed Judicial Reasoning
On Territorial Jurisdiction
KRBL’s counsel argued that rectification petitions must be filed before the High Court that exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the registration occurred. Since “INDIA GATE” was registered at the Delhi Registry, only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on the Delhi High Court’s decision in The Hershey Company v. Dilip Kumar Bacha [MANU/DE/0904/2024] and the Madras High Court’s decision in M/s Woltop India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [W.P. (IPD) Nos. 30 & 32 of 2024].
Pas Agro’s counsel countered that Section 57 merely refers to “the High Court” without restricting it to the High Court having appellate authority over a specific Registry. She argued that since part of the cause of action—specifically, the seizure of goods—occurred in Kerala, and the petitioner’s business operations were affected there, the Kerala High Court could exercise jurisdiction. She cited Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. Fast Cure Pharma & Anr. [C.O. (Comm.IPD-TM) 8/2023], where the Delhi High Court recognized the principle of dynamic effect—that a court could assume jurisdiction if the harmful effects of a trademark registration were felt within its territory.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim analyzed Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act alongside Rules 4 and 5 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, as well as related provisions under Sections 47, 91, 124, and 125 of the Act. The Court observed that prior to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) handled rectification matters, but this jurisdiction was now vested in High Courts.
Referring to the Woltop India decision, the Court agreed with the Madras High Court’s interpretation that the definite article “the High Court” signifies a specific High Court—the one exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Registry concerned. The use of the definite article “the” indicated legislative intent to restrict jurisdiction to a particular High Court, avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting decisions across different States.
The Kerala High Court also examined Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd. v. Suraj Sharma [A.No.556 of 2024 in C.S. (Comm.Div) No.7 of 2024], where the Madras High Court had applied the dynamic effect principle to consolidate a rectification proceeding. However, since that order had been stayed by the Supreme Court (SLP (C) No.10454 of 2024), Justice Hakhim found it inappropriate to rely on it.
Ultimately, the Court held that if rectification petitions could be filed in any High Court based on where the “dynamic effect” was felt, it would lead to “jurisdictional chaos.” There was a risk of multiple rectification petitions concerning the same mark being filed before different High Courts, resulting in conflicting orders and procedural paralysis.
Therefore, the Court concluded that only the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the impugned mark was registered—in this case, the Delhi High Court—could entertain the rectification petition.
On Prematurity under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act
KRBL further argued that the petition was premature, as the Delhi District Court had not yet framed any issue on the invalidity of the registration under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act. The provision stipulates that in an infringement suit, if a party raises the plea of invalidity, the trial court must first determine whether that plea is prima facie tenable and frame an issue accordingly. Only after this step can the party approach the High Court for rectification.
Justice Hakhim quoted the full text of Section 124 and examined its procedural structure. He explained that the provision contemplates two situations—
(1) when a rectification petition is already pending before the High Court or Registrar at the time the infringement suit is filed, and
(2) when no such petition is pending and the plea of invalidity is raised in the infringement suit.
In the latter case, the party must obtain the trial court’s satisfaction that the invalidity plea is prima facie tenable; only then can they approach the High Court within three months. Failing to do so results in deemed abandonment of that plea.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. [(2018) 2 SCC 112], which held that when an infringement suit is pending, any challenge to trademark validity must first be raised and endorsed by the trial court before being referred for rectification. Otherwise, the rectification proceedings are not maintainable.
Justice Hakhim reiterated that this statutory mechanism prevents misuse of rectification petitions as delay tactics and ensures coherence between civil proceedings and statutory rectification actions. He emphasized that the legislative intent was to avoid multiple parallel proceedings and conflicting outcomes, reinforcing that the rectification forum acquires jurisdiction only after the civil court’s prima facie satisfaction.
Since Pas Agro had not secured such a finding or issue framing from the Delhi District Court, its petition before the Kerala High Court was held premature and legally untenable.
---
Decision
After analyzing both jurisdictional and procedural grounds, the Kerala High Court held that the Special Jurisdiction Case filed by Pas Agro Foods was not maintainable.
The Court reasoned that (1) only the Delhi High Court, having appellate control over the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, could entertain a rectification petition concerning the “INDIA GATE” mark, and (2) the petition was premature as no issue of invalidity had yet been framed under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act in the ongoing infringement suit before the Delhi District Court.
Consequently, I.A. No. 2 of 2025 filed by KRBL was allowed, and SP.JC No. 2 of 2025 was dismissed as not maintainable.
---
Suggested Titles for Publication
1. “Rectification Jurisdiction under the Trade Marks Act: The Kerala High Court’s Stand in Pas Agro v. KRBL”
2. “Dynamic Effect vs. Territorial Discipline: Decoding Jurisdiction in Trademark Rectification”
3. “Premature Rectification Petitions and Section 124 Compliance: A Study of Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Ltd.”
4. “From IPAB to High Courts: Jurisdictional Harmonization in Trademark Law”
5. “Kerala High Court on Territorial Limits and Procedural Gateways in Trademark Rectification”
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
