The High Court of Delhi's recent ruling in the trademark infringement cases, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 301/2022 and 469/2022, underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The cases, involving the petitioner Mr. Nadir Rizvi of M/S. Amroha Mehndi Udhyog and the respondent Rafiq Ahmed of M/S. Shahji General Store, revolved around the contentious issue of the removal of the trademark 'HINA ZULFI' from the Register of Trade Marks. The court’s decision to dismiss the rectification petitions filed by the petitioner due to non-compliance with Section 124(1)(ii) of the Act serves as a crucial lesson for litigants in trademark disputes. This article examines the legal reasoning behind the court's order, the procedural significance of Section 124, and its broader implications for trademark litigation in India.

Background of the Case:
In these cases, the petitioner sought the removal of the respondent's trademark 'HINA ZULFI' from the Trade Marks Register, arguing that the registration was invalid. The petitioner’s challenge was part of an ongoing legal battle, with related suits pending in the District Court of Jyotiba Phule Nagar, Amroha. Specifically, Suit No. 1/2016 was pending, while another suit (No. 01/2013) filed by the petitioner had already been dismissed.

The respondent’s counsel raised a procedural objection, asserting that the petitioner had failed to seek prior leave from the court under Section 124(1)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before filing the rectification petitions. This objection became the focal point of the court's analysis.

Understanding Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999:
The Purpose and Scope of Section 124:
Section 124 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 governs the process to be followed when the validity of a trademark’s registration is questioned during an infringement suit. The provision aims to balance the rights of the trademark holder with the need for judicial efficiency, ensuring that challenges to a trademark’s validity are addressed in an orderly and systematic manner.

Section 124(1)(ii) specifically states that if the defendant in a trademark infringement suit challenges the validity of the plaintiff's trademark, the court must stay the suit and allow the party to apply for rectification. However, if no rectification proceedings are pending and the plea appears prima facie tenable, the court is required to adjourn the case, giving the party time to seek rectification. Importantly, the section mandates that a party must obtain prior leave from the court to initiate such rectification proceedings if the matter is already under adjudication.

Legal Significance of Prior Leave:
The requirement of prior leave under Section 124(1)(ii) serves as a procedural safeguard. It prevents the misuse of rectification petitions as a delay tactic and ensures that the court retains control over the proceedings. This provision aligns with the broader principle of judicial economy, preventing parallel litigation and conflicting decisions by different courts.

The Delhi High Court’s Analysis:
Non-Compliance with Section 124:
In the cases at hand, the Delhi High Court critically examined the procedural history and the petitioner's approach. The court observed that the petitioner had bypassed the necessary step of seeking leave from the court before filing the rectification petitions. This oversight, the court noted, was not a mere technicality but a fundamental breach of the procedural requirements laid down by Section 124.

The petitioner’s inability to counter the respondent’s submission regarding non-compliance with Section 124 further weakened his position. The court found that the petitions were filed prematurely and without following the due process, rendering them non-maintainable.

Consequences of Non-Compliance:
As a result of this procedural lapse, the court dismissed the rectification petitions. However, recognizing the petitioner’s right to challenge the validity of the trademark, the court granted liberty to file fresh petitions after adhering to the proper procedure under Section 124. This outcome highlights the judiciary's commitment to enforcing procedural rules while ensuring that substantive rights are not unduly prejudiced.

Broader Implications:
Procedural Rigor in Trademark Litigation:
The court's decision underscores the necessity for procedural rigor in trademark litigation. Compliance with statutory provisions like Section 124 is not merely a formality but a critical aspect of the legal process. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for litigants and legal practitioners, emphasizing the importance of following established procedures to avoid adverse outcomes.

Impact on Trademark Disputes:
The requirement of prior leave under Section 124 ensures that challenges to a trademark's validity are handled in a controlled and efficient manner. By enforcing this provision, the courts can prevent the dilution of the trademark register through frivolous or poorly considered rectification petitions. This, in turn, strengthens the reliability and integrity of the trademark registration system in India.

Conclusion:
The Delhi High Court's ruling in the cases of C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 301/2022 and 469/2022 serves as a pivotal reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural requirements under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The dismissal of the rectification petitions due to non-compliance with Section 124(1)(ii) highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the procedural safeguards that underpin the trademark registration system.

Case Citation: Mr. Nadir Rizvi Vs Rafiq Ahmed: 16.08.2024 : C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 301/2022: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna: H.J

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
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539