Introduction: The case of Fair Food Overseas Pvt Ltd v. KRBL Limited, decided by the High Court of Delhi, represents a significant judicial interpretation in the realm of intellectual property rights (IPR) litigation in India, particularly concerning the interplay between procedural rules governing IPR disputes and the general transfer powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
This matter revolves around a transfer petition seeking to shift a copyright infringement suit from a District Court to the High Court's Intellectual Property Division (IPD) for consolidation with a related rectification petition. The decision underscores the High Court's broad discretionary authority to streamline IPR proceedings to prevent multiplicity and conflicting judgments, even when the underlying suit does not qualify as a "commercial" matter under specialized legislation. This ruling emerges against the backdrop of evolving IPR frameworks in India, following the abolition of bodies like the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the establishment of dedicated IPD rules to expedite dispute resolution.
By affirming the primacy of Section 24 of the CPC over restrictive interpretations of Rule 26 of the IPD Rules, 2022, the court sets a precedent for efficient case management in IPR cases, highlighting the need for harmonious construction of statutory provisions to serve the ends of justice. The judgment not only facilitates consolidated adjudication but also reflects the judiciary's proactive stance in adapting procedural norms to the complexities of modern IPR enforcement, where overlapping issues of copyright validity and infringement often span multiple forums.
Factual Background:The dispute originates from allegations of copyright infringement involving trade dress and artistic works in the food industry, specifically basmati rice packaging. KRBL Limited, a prominent player in the rice export market known for its "India Gate" brand, initiated a suit in 2021 before the Additional District Judge at Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, against Fair Food Overseas Pvt Ltd. The suit accused Fair Food of infringing KRBL's copyright in its trade dress, seeking remedies including a permanent injunction, passing off declaration, rendition of accounts, and damages.
The trade dress in question pertained to visual elements like packaging design, which KRBL claimed as proprietary. In response, KRBL also filed a rectification petition before the High Court's IPD, aiming to expunge Fair Food's copyright registration No. A-121365/2017 for a similar artistic work, arguing it was invalid or improperly granted. Fair Food, on the other hand, contested these claims, asserting the legitimacy of its registration and denying any infringement. The factual matrix reveals a classic IPR tussle where both parties claim rights over similar aesthetic elements in product packaging, a common issue in competitive markets like food exports.
The suit was valued below the Rs. 3 lakh threshold, rendering it a non-commercial matter under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, while the rectification petition fell squarely under the High Court's IPR jurisdiction post the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, which transferred such matters from the defunct IPAB to High Courts.
Procedural Background: KRBL's suit (TM No. 305 of 2021) filed in the District Court, where interim applications under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for injunction and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for plaint amendment were pending, indicating the matter was at an nascent stage without substantial progress. Parallelly, KRBL's rectification petition (C.O. (COMM.IPD-CR) 707/2022) was lodged before the High Court's IPD. Fair Food then filed the transfer petition (TR.P.(C.) 7/2024) under Section 24 CPC read with Rule 26 of the IPD Rules, seeking to transfer the District Court suit to the High Court for joint hearing with the rectification petition to avoid duplicative proceedings.
Fair Food's counsel argued that the early stage of the suit, overlapping IPR issues, and the IPD Rules' consolidation powers justified the transfer, citing precedents like Patola Industries v. Mahesh Namkeen Pvt Ltd, where similar transfers were ordered. They emphasized that Rule 26 empowers consolidation of related IPR matters and that Section 24 CPC provides general transfer authority, not limited to commercial courts.
In opposition, KRBL's counsel contended that Rule 26 applies only to suits before commercial courts, as the suit's low valuation excluded it from such classification, and transfers must be read restrictively in conjunction with CPC provisions. They relied on Fox & Mandal v. Somabrata Mandal from the Calcutta High Court, stressing the importance of procedural stage and potential delays, and Sonani Industries Pvt Ltd v. Sanjay Jayantibhai Patel, where a rectification was stayed pending suit disposal.
Reasoning and Decision of Court: In its detailed analysis, the court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, meticulously dissected the interplay between Rule 26 of the IPD Rules and Section 24 of the CPC. The court acknowledged the respondent's (KRBL's) primary objection that Rule 26 limits transfers to matters pending before commercial courts, as explicitly stated in the rule, which allows the IPD to exercise Section 24 powers only for such consolidations. However, the court adopted a harmonious interpretation, holding that Rule 26 does not curtail the High Court's inherent general powers under Section 24 CPC, which permit transfers of any subordinate court proceedings at any stage, even suo motu, to prevent multiplicity and ensure consistent adjudication.
The court reasoned that the reference to Section 24 in Rule 26 is merely clarificatory and does not restrict its broader application, emphasizing that both provisions share the objective of avoiding conflicting decisions in related matters. Applying this to IPR disputes, where parties often pursue remedies across forums, the court noted the identical subject matter—copyright validity and infringement—in the suit and rectification petition, making consolidation expedient. It distinguished precedents like Fox & Mandal, where advanced procedural stages and delays weighed against transfer, observing that the present suit was at an early juncture with pending interim applications, causing no prejudice. Similarly, Sonani Industries was differentiated due to Supreme Court directives for expeditious suit disposal, which were absent here.
The court also referenced its prior exercises of transfer powers in Loreal India Pvt Ltd and Patola Industries, even if consensual, to affirm that non-commercial IPR matters can be transferred under Section 24 independently of Rule 26. Ultimately, the court allowed the transfer petition, directing the District Court suit to be transferred to the High Court, renumbered, and consolidated with the rectification petition for joint hearing on March 16, 2026, while disposing of the transfer petition and listing the rectification accordingly.
Point of Law Settled in the Case: The judgment settles a crucial point of law regarding the scope of transfer powers in IPR proceedings under the IPD Rules vis-à-vis the CPC. Specifically, it clarifies that Rule 26 of the IPD Rules, which empowers the High Court to consolidate related IPR matters and transfer those pending before commercial courts using Section 24 CPC, does not limit or circumscribe the general transfer authority under Section 24 CPC for non-commercial IPR suits. The court establishes that Section 24 confers wide, independent powers on the High Court to transfer any subordinate court proceeding involving IPR subject matter, irrespective of commercial classification, to avoid multiplicity, parallel adjudication, and conflicting decisions. This harmonious construction ensures that the IPD Rules supplement rather than restrict CPC provisions, promoting efficient resolution in IPR disputes where overlapping issues are common. By rejecting a narrow reading of Rule 26, the decision affirms the judiciary's discretion in case management, setting a benchmark for future transfers in hybrid commercial-non-commercial IPR litigations.
Case Title: Fair Food Overseas Pvt Ltd Vs KRBL Limited
Date of Order: 04.12.2025
Case Number: TR.P.(C.) 7/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11705
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer: 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
