In a decisive move, the Kerala High Court has declined to wade into the long-simmering trademark fight over India Gate rice, ruling that only the Delhi High Court holds the authority to hear the matter.
The case began when PAS Agro Foods, a Kerala-based firm, sought to cancel the India Gate trademark owned by Delhi-headquartered KRBL Limited — one of India’s biggest Basmati rice exporters. But Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim made it clear: jurisdiction is everything.
Citing Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court underscored that only the High Court overseeing the registry where a mark is recorded can hear a plea for its cancellation. Since India Gate was registered with the Delhi Trade Marks Registry, the Delhi High Court is the only venue that can entertain such a case.
“The High Court that exercises appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the trademark is registered alone has jurisdiction,” the order noted, warning that allowing multiple courts to handle such petitions could create a “chaotic web of conflicting judgments.”
The dispute has roots going back to 1993, when a businessman named Ram Pratap registered the India Gate trademark in Delhi. In 2019, he transferred the rights to KRBL. Earlier this year, KRBL sued PAS Agro in a Delhi court for allegedly infringing the mark, leading to an injunction and the seizure of goods bearing the India Gate label from PAS Agro’s premises in Kerala.
In response, PAS Agro turned to the Kerala High Court, arguing that because its operations and the product seizure both occurred within the state, Kerala courts should have jurisdiction. But the High Court disagreed, stressing that a brand’s local impact cannot dictate where legal authority lies.
The Court also found the plea “premature.” Under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, a civil court must first identify a credible issue regarding the validity of a trademark before a rectification plea can proceed. Since the Delhi District Court had not yet done so, Kerala’s intervention was unwarranted.
In closing, Justice Hakhim reiterated that the structure of the law was deliberate — meant to prevent forum-shopping and judicial contradictions.
PAS Agro’s petition was dismissed as not maintainable, leaving the fate of the India Gate trademark firmly in Delhi’s hands.
