In a key ruling on jurisdictional clarity over trademark disputes, the Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by PAS Agro Foods, a Kerala-based firm, seeking cancellation of the registered trademark 'India Gate' held by KRBL Limited, the Delhi-based rice giant known for its flagship basmati brand.
The case, heard by Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim on October 27, 2025, revolved around whether the Kerala High Court could entertain a petition to rectify or cancel a trademark registered in New Delhi.
Background
The dispute began after KRBL Limited, owner of the India Gate trademark since 1993 (acquired via assignment in 2019), filed an infringement suit before the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari, New Delhi, against PAS Agro Foods for allegedly using the same name on its rice products.
Following the Delhi court's temporary injunction in January 2025, police-assisted seizure operations were conducted at PAS Agro's Palakkad premises, confiscating packaging and materials bearing the India Gate name.
Feeling aggrieved, PAS Agro approached the Kerala High Court in February 2025 under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of KRBL's registration. KRBL, in response, challenged the maintainability of the case, citing lack of jurisdiction and premature filing.
Court's Observations
Justice Abdul Hakhim began by outlining the two objections raised by KRBL-
- Lack of territorial jurisdiction, and
- Prematurity of the case under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act.
On jurisdiction, KRBL argued that since the India Gate trademark was registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, only the Delhi High Court could entertain a rectification plea. Their counsel cited precedents including The Hershey Company v. Dilip Kumar Bacha and M/s Woltop India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Fire at Orion Conmerx Was Accidental, Orders National Insurance to Pay Full Claim
The petitioner, however, contended that part of the cause of action arose in Kerala, as the seizure and business restrictions occurred there. They relied on Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. Fast Cure Pharma, where the Delhi High Court had accepted a “dynamic effect” principle - meaning a case could be heard where the impact of the registration was felt.
After considering both views, Justice Hakhim noted the contradictory interpretations by different courts but agreed with the Madras High Court’s ruling in Woltop India, which held that "any other interpretation would create jurisdictional chaos."
"I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Madras High Court. The conferment of jurisdiction on a High Court based on the so-called ‘dynamic effect’ principle would lead to utter confusion," the judge observed.
He clarified that the High Court having appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry-in this case, the Delhi High Court-alone can hear rectification petitions under Sections 47 or 57 of the Act.
Read also:- Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence of Jemaben for Burning Her Niece-in-Law Alive in Gujarat Murder Case
On Prematurity of the Case
The Court further held that PAS Agro's petition was premature, as the Delhi Commercial Court had not yet framed an issue regarding the validity of KRBL’s trademark registration - a necessary precondition under Section 124(1)(ii).
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. (2018), Justice Hakhim reiterated that a rectification petition cannot be filed directly before a High Court while an infringement suit is pending, unless the trial court has first determined that the challenge to validity is prima facie tenable.
“If parties are allowed to institute rectification proceedings casually, every infringement suit could be stalled indefinitely,” the bench remarked.
Court’s Decision
Finding merit in both objections raised by KRBL, the Kerala High Court concluded that PAS Agro's plea was not maintainable.
“Since the trademark ‘India Gate’ was registered at the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, the Delhi High Court alone has jurisdiction. The present case, therefore, fails on both counts-jurisdiction and prematurity,” the order stated.
Accordingly, I.A. No. 2/2025 was allowed, and the Special Jurisdiction Case (SP.JC No. 2/2025) filed by PAS Agro Foods was dismissed.
The ruling effectively directs PAS Agro to pursue any challenge before the Delhi High Court, after obtaining requisite findings from the Tis Hazari Commercial Court.
Case Title:- Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited and Ors.
