Data Infosys Ltd. And Ors. vs Infosys Technologies Ltd. on 5 February, 2016

Through: Sh. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Sh.
Prashant Gupta and Sh. Kanishk Kumar, Advocates.
Sh. Hemant Singh, Intervening counsel
Ms. Anuradha Salhotra and Sh. Sumit Wadhwa,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

%

1. This Full Bench is called upon to answer a reference made in terms of
the order of the Division Bench dated 27.08.2012. The Division Bench, by
its order of reference noticed a judicial conflict on the question whether
prior permission of the Court is necessary under Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the

FAO (OS) 403/2012 Page 1
Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereafter “the Act”) for rectification of a registered
trademark, during the pendency of a suit. The first view is that proceedings
for rectification of the defendant’s mark cannot be initiated without the
prima facie satisfaction of the plea by the Court and that the suit cannot be
adjourned or stayed in terms of Section 124(1)(b)(ii) of the Act to await the
outcome of the rectification proceedings initiated by the plaintiff before the
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereafter “IPAB”) – if the procedure
outlined therein is not followed. The other view is that such proceedings (for
rectification before the IPAB) can be initiated without the permission of the
court trying the infringement suit and the consequence of not obtaining
permission is only that the applicant cannot seek stay of suit.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply

*