Delhi High Court - Orders
Parle Products Private Limited vs Avon Agro Industries Private Limted & ... on 8 September, 2025
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 201/2025, I.A. 22046/2025, I.A. 22047/2025
& I.A. 22048/2025
PARLE PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Isha Gandhi, Mr. N.K.
Bhardwaj, Mr. Bikash Ghorai, Mr.
Neeraj Bhardwaj, Mr. Avinash K.
Sharma & Ms. Purnima Vashishtha,
Advocates.
versus
AVON AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMTED
& ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ajay S., Mr. Sanjeev & Mr.
Chirag Ahluwalia, Advocates for R-1.
Ms. Nidhi Raman, Mr. Mayank
Sansanwal & Mr. Om Ram,
Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
ORDER
% 08.09.2025
1. This is a Petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("Act") for rectification / removal / cancellation of the Trade Mark registered vide Registration No. 1606126 in Class 30 in the name of Respondent No. 1, from the Register of Trade Marks.
2. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 raises a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present Petition in view of the Appeal, being CA(COMM.IPD-TM) No. 49/2025 ("Appeal"), filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by Respondent No. 2 herein. Vide order dated 18.08.2025, a Notice was issued in the Appeal and time was granted to file the Reply in the said Appeal.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 22:51:10
3. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that since the Petitioner has already challenged the order passed by Respondent No. 2 granting Registration of the impugned Trade Mark, sought to be rectified / cancelled in this Petition, it is not permissible for the Petitioner to file parallel Petition under Section 57 of the Act.
4. It is further submitted that the remedy to challenge the order by way of an Appeal under Section 91 of the Act and a Petition under Section 57 of the Act are mutually exclusive and both cannot be maintained simultaneously. It is also submitted that the consequence of the decision in the Appeal and in this Petition will be the same and, therefore, this Petition cannot be filed whilst the Appeal is pending.
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is entitled to file the present Petition because the trigger for filing the present Petition is the factum of registration, whereas the Appeal is limited to the challenge of the order of registration passed by Respondent No. 2, and even though the consequence of both the proceedings may be the same, the remedies are different and, therefore, both can be maintained parallelly.
6. Further, it is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, that there is no bar in law to file the Rectification Petition, whilst the Appeal is pending against the order passed by Respondent No. 2 granting registration to the impugned Trade Mark.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the jurisdictions under Sections 57 and 91 of the Act are different and can also result in different consequences. While the Appeal can also result in remand of the matter to Respondent No. 2, the consideration of Rectification Petition This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 22:51:10 would be de novo examination of the impugned Trade Mark under the provisions of the Act.
8. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that to avoid any procedural hurdle, this Petition may be listed along with the Appeal [CA(COMM.IPD-TM) No. 49/2025] and the Appeal may be decided prior to deciding the present Petition so that there is no conflict of decisions with regard to Appeal and the present Petition.
9. Without prejudice to the preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, issue Notice.
10. The learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 accept Notice.
11. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that Respondent No. 1 shall file a consolidated reply in the Appeal and this Petition within a period of four weeks from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
12. List on 10.12.2025 along with Appeal being CA(COMM.IPD-TM) No. 49/2025.
13. The date already given in the Appeal being CA(COMM.IPD-TM) No. 49/2025 of 10.10.2025 stands cancelled.
TEJAS KARIA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 'gsr' This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 12/09/2025 at 22:51:10