- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Ravi V Hosmani
- Outcome
- Rectification allowed
Headnote
Writ allowed and the order staying the suit under section 124 of the Trade Marks Act set aside. The requirements of section 124(1)(b) are cumulative and mandatory. The pendency of rectification applications filed by both sides is not enough: the plaintiff must also have pleaded the invalidity of the defendant's registered mark. Here the plaint alleged only fraudulent registration and passing off and recorded that the plaintiff was pursuing rectification separately, and no issue on invalidity was framed. The plea of invalidity was therefore to be treated as abandoned so far as the suit was concerned, and the suit had to proceed. The trial court had treated mere pendency of the rectifications as satisfying the statute, which was unsustainable.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.