The Supreme Court declined to hand over ownership of the "Gloster" trademark to a successful resolution applicant, holding that insolvency courts cannot decide complex trademark title disputes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The ruling came in a long-running fight between Gloster Limited and Gloster Cables Limited over who owns the "Gloster" trademark after the insolvency resolution of Fort Gloster Industries Limited (FGIL). The bench was clear: the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had gone too far when it declared that the trademark belonged to the corporate debtor and, by extension, to the resolution applicant
FGIL entered insolvency in 2018. During the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP), Gloster Limited emerged as the successful resolution applicant. However, Gloster Cables Limited moved the NCLT, arguing that the “Gloster” trademark was never an asset of FGIL and should be excluded from any approved resolution plan.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sends Dubai-Based Couple to Mediation, Flags Child's Stay Away from Parents as "Objectionable"
The NCLT rejected this plea and ruled that the trademark formed part of FGIL’s assets. This finding was overturned by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), which held that the NCLT should not have decided trademark ownership. Both sides then approached the Supreme Court.
Gloster Limited argued that since the insolvency court was already seized of the matter, it had the power to rule on trademark ownership. The company also claimed that the assignment of the trademark in favour of Gloster Cables was illegal and hit by insolvency law restrictions.
Gloster Cables, on the other hand, maintained that trademark title involves detailed factual and legal examination, which falls outside the limited jurisdiction of insolvency tribunals. It said such issues must be decided by civil or commercial courts.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Transfers Divorce Case to Haryana, Citing Wife’s Hardship and Minor Child’s Welfare
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellate tribunal’s reasoning. The bench noted that Section 60(5) of the IBC gives NCLT wide powers, but those powers are not unlimited.
The court observed that while insolvency tribunals can decide issues directly connected to insolvency resolution, they cannot "short-circuit" proper legal forums to rule on disputed property or intellectual property titles.
Importantly, the judges pointed out that even the approved resolution plan itself acknowledged rival claims over the trademark. In such a situation, the NCLT could not have granted a clear declaration of ownership in favour of the resolution applicant.
Upholding the NCLAT decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the NCLT lacked jurisdiction to declare who owns the "Gloster" trademark during the insolvency process. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, leaving the parties to pursue trademark title claims before the appropriate legal forum
Case Title: Gloster Limited v. Gloster Cables Limited & Others
Case Numbers
- Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024
- Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2024
Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA and Justice K. V. Viswanathan
Date of Judgment: 22 January 2026
