ASWAL ASSOCIATES- Intellectual Property Law firm India

  I.  Introduction: The Question Presented At its narrowest, this order answers a procedural question; at its widest, it restates one of the most litigated principles in Indian intellectual-property practice — the limits of a rights-holder's freedom to choose its forum. The plaintiff, Metro Brands Limited, sought leave under Clause 14 of the Bombay High Court's Letters Patent to join, in a single suit before the Bombay High Court, two causes of action: infringement of its registered trade mark METRO / METBRANDS (invoking this Court's jurisdiction through Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999), and passing off, which — on the plaintiff's own pleading — was occurring entirely within the State of Kerala, beyond this Court's territorial reach. Gauri Godse, J. dismissed the leave petition, leaving the plaintiff at liberty to sue in accordance with law. II.  The Dispute and the Parties Metro Brands Limited is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, ...

In HUL v. Kwick Living, the Delhi High Court declined to decide territorial jurisdiction and referred three questions to a Larger Bench. The underlying dispute is a familiar disparagement fight — HUL's grievance against a campaign styled "War on What's Hidden" that it says denigrates Vim and Surf Excel . Confronted at the threshold with the defendant's objection that Delhi has no territorial jurisdiction, Justice A.J. Bhambhani surveys the wreckage of the case law, and refers three questions to a Larger Bench. The factual matrix is almost engineered to expose the doctrinal fault lines: Both parties have their registered offices in Mumbai . HUL additionally has a corporate office in Delhi — a subordinate office, in the language of the statute. The only impugned hoarding the plaintiff could actually confirm at the time of filing was in Mumbai (para 75 of the plaint). The sole hook for Delhi is digital : the campaign is a...

The Rule 45 Deadline in Trademark Oppositions- The High Court Divide The Madras High Court recently ruled in V-Guard Industries v. Kangaro Industries (LPA No. 18 of 2026, decided 30 July 2026) that the two-month deadline under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 is strict and mandatory. If an opponent misses it, the opposition is deemed abandoned, and the Registrar has no power under Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (read with Rule 109) to extend that period. The Bench accordingly set aside a single Judge’s order that had revived the abandoned opposition and remanded it. This ruling deepens a national split: Delhi and Madras say the deadline is absolute, while Bombay says it is flexible. With no Supreme Court ruling yet, the conflict is ripe for resolution. 1. BACKGROUND FACTS •            The mark V-GUARD with the device of a Kangaroo was first adopted by Mr.Kochouseph Chittilappilly in 1977 in respect of voltage stabilizers...