MP High Court Sets Aside Deletion Of J.P. Structures From Jindal Steel's Trademark Infringement Suit

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on 1 July set aside an order of the Commercial Court, Bhopal, which had deleted a construction contractor from Jindal Steel and Power Limited's trademark infringement suit over the alleged use of counterfeit TMT rebars bearing the “JINDAL TMT” mark in the construction of a Government Medical College project.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed the appeals filed against J.P. Structures Private Limited and Others, set aside the Commercial Court's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration after issuing notice to the proposed defendants. It held:

“Admittedly, before deciding the said application, the notices ought to have been issued to the respondents no. 2 to 4 who were proposed to be impleaded as defendants in the suit. On this ground, the impugned order is unsustainable in law, and the matter is liable to be remanded back to the commercial court for fresh adjudication.”

Jindal Steel, the proprietor of the registered trademarks “JINDAL”, “JINDAL PANTHER” and “PANTHER” for TMT rebars, filed the suit before the Commercial Court, Bhopal against J.P. Structures Pvt. Ltd., seeking a permanent injunction, damages of Rs. 2 crore and rendition of accounts for the alleged infringement and passing off.

It contended that it learnt in May 2024 that counterfeit rebars bearing the mark “JINDAL TMT” were being used by J.P. Structures in the construction of a Government Medical College at Budhni in Sehore district. It also alleged that the work order for the project permitted only approved brands, including JINDAL PANTHER.

Further, it argued that although J.P. Structures had earlier purchased genuine JINDAL PANTHER rebars from authorised dealers, it later switched to counterfeit products procured from unauthorised sources to earn illegal profits. It also claimed that the contractor initially failed to disclose the identity of its suppliers despite receiving a legal notice dated 4 June 2024.

During the pendency of the suit, J.P. Structures filed an application claiming that it was only a bona fide purchaser and disclosed its suppliers as Zetwerk Manufacturing Business Pvt. Ltd., Jain Steel Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. and Piyush Steel.

Following this disclosure, Jindal Steel sought to implead the suppliers as defendants, while J.P. Structures filed a separate application seeking deletion of its name from the suit, contending that it was neither a necessary nor a proper party.

By an order dated 27 February 2025, the Commercial Court allowed the contractor's application, holding that it was merely a bona fide purchaser and could not be held liable for trademark infringement or passing off. It also held that the pending application for appointment of a Local Commissioner had become infructuous.

The High Court did not examine the merits of the contractor's liability and confined its decision to the procedural irregularity committed by the Commercial Court. It held that the proposed defendants were entitled to be heard before any order affecting their rights was passed. The judges noted:

“The proposed defendant has the right to oppose their impleadment in the suit. Hence, we are refraining ourselves in commenting on any observations on the merit of the case.”

Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Commercial Court's order, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication after issuing notice to the proposed defendants, and directed the parties to appear before the Commercial Court, Bhopal on 1 August 2026. It also allowed a connected writ petition filed by Zetwerk Manufacturing on the same terms.