Kerala High Court rejects trademark case against India Gate rice; says Delhi courts have jurisdiction

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea seeking the cancellation of the 'India Gate' trademark used by KRBL Limited to sell Basmati rice, on finding that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to decide the matter [PAS Agro Foods v KRBL Limited & ors].

The Court held that only the courts in Delhi would have territorial jurisdiction over the matter since the trademark was registered with the Trade Marks Registry in Delhi.

Justice MA Abdul Hakhim explained that as per Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, (Act), a trademark rectification or cancellation petition must be filed before the High Court exercising appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the mark was registered.

"It is the High Court that exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the trade mark is registered, alone is having jurisdiction to entertain the Rectification Petitions with respect to such trade mark under Sections 47 of 57 of the Act. 16. In the case on hand, since the subject trade mark is registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, the Delhi High Court alone is having jurisdiction to entertain the Rectification Petition. Consequently, I hold that the above Special Jurisdiction Case is not maintainable in this Court for want of jurisdiction," the October 27 ruling said.

The Court was hearing a plea by a Kerala-based firm called PAS Agro Foods, which had sought the cancellation of the 'India Gate' trademark owned by Delhi-based KRBL Limited.

The 'India Gate' trademark was initially owned by one Ram Pratap, who had obtained the trademark registration from the Trade Marks Registry in New Delhi, on June 18, 1993.

In August 2019, the said trademark was assigned to KRBL.

Earlier this year, KRBL sued PAS Agro before a Delhi District Court for allegedly infringing such trademark rights. In January, the Delhi Court passed a temporary injunction order restraining PAS Agro Foods from using the 'India Gate' trademark.

The district court also appointed an Advocate Commissioner to seize goods bearing this mark from PAS Agro Food's premises.

PAS Agro Foods then moved a plea before the Kerala High Court to cancel KRBL's registration of the trademark 'India Gate'.

KRBL opposed PAS Agro Food's suit, contending that the Kerala High Court had no territorial jurisdiction over the matter since the trademark was registered in Delhi.

The company also submitted that the petition was premature.

However, PAS Agro Foods maintained that since their business operations were in Kerala and since the seizure of goods occurred in Kerala, the Kerala Court would have territorial jurisdiction.

The Court, however, agreed with KRBL's arguments. It noted that if trademark rectification or cancellation petitions were allowed to be entertained by multiple courts, it could lead to conflicting judgments.

The jurisdiction of a High Court when it comes to trademark rectification cases cannot be stretched to include every place where the impact of trademark is felt, the High Court held.

"Any other interpretation would invite the filing of multiple Rectification Petitions with respect to the same trade mark before several High Courts, and there is every chance of different High Courts passing conflicting orders … If different High Courts pass conflicting orders, the situation will become worse," it explained.

The Court also agreed with KRBL's contention that the PAS Agro Food's plea was premature.

In this regard, the Court noted that under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act, an issue regarding the validity of the trademark registration must be framed by a civil court first. Only if the civil court finds that there is some prima facie merit to a challenge posed to the validity of a trademark registration, can a window be given for the challenger to file a trademark rectification application.

In this case, the Delhi District Court was yet to frame any issue about the validity of the trademark registration. The High Court concluded that PAS Agro Food's plea was not maintainable for this reason as well.

"The law is clear on the point. The Petitioner cannot file the above Special Jurisdiction Case under Section 57 of the Act seeking cancellation of the trade mark registration granted to the Respondent No.1 without framing an issue regarding the invalidity of the registration in C.S.(Comm) No.78/2025 pending before the District Court, New Delhi, after satisfying the Court of the prima facie tenability of the plea regarding the validity of the registration of the trade mark," it held.

PAS Agro Foods was represented by advocate M Uma Devi.

Advocates Praveen K Joy and Shravan Kumar Bansal appeared for KRBL Limited.

Advocate R Muraleekrishnan represented the Deputy Registrar of Copyrights.

[Read Judgment]