- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- H. P. Sandesh
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Writ allowed, the refusal to stay the suit set aside and the application under section 124 of the Trade Marks Act granted. The trial court had considered only the proviso to section 124(1)(a) and had misdirected itself by not applying section 124(1)(b), which governs where rectification proceedings are already pending. The Court also rejected the contention that invalidity had not been pleaded: although one paragraph of the written statement did not take the point, another expressly disputed the validity of the registration, pleaded that the user claim from 1992 was unsupported by any document, and reserved liberty to seek rectification. Where rectification is pending, the suit must be stayed pending its disposal.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.