Analysts examine conflicting approaches of the Calcutta and Delhi High Courts on whether non-use cancellation proceedings under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act can trigger an automatic stay under Section 124. The divergence highlights uncertainty in procedural interplay between infringement and rectification actions.
Conflicting Approaches on Section 124 Stay in Trademark Cancellation Cases
A recent analysis by Arushi Bisht and Snehal Singh examines the legal question of whether non-use cancellation proceedings under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 constitute “rectification proceedings” under Section 124, thereby entitling a defendant to an automatic stay of infringement suits.
The Calcutta High Court has historically treated Section 47 proceedings as rectification actions under Section 124, warranting a stay. In contrast, the Delhi High Court has adopted a narrower view, requiring stronger justification before staying infringement litigation. This divergence creates forum-shopping risks and procedural uncertainty for litigants.
The debate turns on statutory interpretation of Section 124, which empowers courts to stay infringement actions pending rectification proceedings before the Registrar. However, non-use cancellations under Section 47 are not always filed before the IPAB or Registrar and may be initiated in civil courts. Until harmonized by a higher court, practitioners must be vigilant about jurisdiction-specific precedents when advising on litigation strategy.
Citations
- Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 47, Section 124
