Trademark Registrar Can Be Court Subordinate To HC For Rectification Proceedings Transfers: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has recently held that the Registrar of Trade Marks can be regarded as a court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of transferring pending trademark rectification proceedings.

The ruling came while allowing the Institute for Technology and Management Trust (ITM) to transfer three rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar to the High Court, where a trademark suit between ITM and Samata Lok Sansthan Trust and 17 connected rectification proceedings are already pending.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan held that hearing all connected matters together would promote efficient adjudication and avoid the possibility of conflicting outcomes.

“For purposes of Section 24 of the CPC, the Registrar having trappings of a Court; wielding a jurisdiction entirely concurrent with this Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the TM Act; and the High Court being the statutory Appellate Court under Section 91 of the TM Act, can indeed be regarded as a Court subordinate to this Court.”, the court held.

The dispute concerns competing claims over trademarks used by the two educational trusts. Between 2014 and 2015, ITM filed three rectification proceedings before the Registrar seeking cancellation of certain trademarks registered in Samata's name.

In 2016, Samata initiated 17 rectification proceedings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), challenging various trademarks registered in ITM's name.

After the IPAB was abolished, Samata's rectification proceedings stood transferred to the High Court and were ordered to be heard with the trademark suit. ITM's three rectification proceedings, however, continued before the Registrar. ITM therefore sought their transfer to ensure that all disputes involving the same parties and overlapping issues were decided together.

The court observed that whether a forum qualifies as a "court" depends on the statutory context in which the issue arises. Referring to the Registrar's powers under the Trade Marks Act, including receiving evidence, administering oaths, compelling attendance of witnesses and enforcing production of documents, the court held that the Registrar possesses "the trappings of a Court."

“As a tribunal with serious trappings of a Court of the first instance, read with the High Court being the Appellate Court before which the statutory right to appeal from its decisions may be exercised, the Registrar, in my judgement can truly be regarded as a subordinate Court for purposes of Section 24 of the CPC.”, the court ruled. 

The court also rejected Samata's objection that ITM should have first approached the Registrar under Section 125(2) of the Trade Marks Act before seeking transfer.

“If the law permits multiple legitimate means to secure a certain outcome, the intended beneficiary may adopt whichever approach he elects to pursue.”, the court added.

Allowing the application, the court directed the Registrar to transmit the records of the three rectification proceedings to the High Court Registry within six weeks.

They will thereafter be registered as Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions and heard along with the pending trademark suit and the 17 connected rectification proceedings. The matters have been listed for August 18, 2026.