A location-based contractual dispute over trade-name use is not an intellectual-property claim.

The plaintiff sought an injunction alleging that the defendant’s use of the trade name “Sindharam Sanwarmal Mewawala” from a shop at 43/44 Cotton Street, Kolkata breached a family settlement restricting use of “Sindharam Sanwarmal,” with any prefix or suffix, within one kilometre of that shop.

The defendant objected that the suit belonged before the High Court’s Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPR Division), relying on Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and the IPR Rules.

It also stated that an earlier proceeding had resulted in directions to maintain accounts and set apart profits.

The Court addressed maintainability and the request for interim relief.

Whether the suit, which alleged breach of a family settlement restricting where the trade name could be used, was maintainable before the Commercial Division rather than the IPR Division.

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to interim injunctive relief before affidavits were filed.

Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act and Sections 2(k) and 2(o) of the High Court’s IPR Rules were raised by the defendant in support of the contention that disputes concerning rights in a registered trademark, including commercial disputes, should be heard by the IPR Division.

The Court distinguished a claim alleging infringement of intellectual-property rights from a claim alleging breach of a contractual restriction on the location of business: where the pleaded complaint concerns only the place of use, and not wrongful use of the trade name itself, the suit is maintainable before the Commercial Division.

The Court also declined to grant interim relief that would effectively provide the final relief or require a mini-trial before affidavits were filed.

On a meaningful reading of the plaint and injunction application, the Court found that the plaintiff did not allege infringement or wrongful use of the trade name as such.

The alleged breach was that the defendant used the name from the specified shop, contrary to the family settlement; the plaintiff did not object to use beyond the one-kilometre radius.

The dispute was therefore contractual in substance, rather than a claim concerning an intellectual-property right, and fell within the Commercial Division’s jurisdiction.

As to interim relief, an injunction against use would effectively grant the final relief, while deciding the factual dispute required affidavits; the Court therefore declined to determine the merits at that stage.

It did not grant the requested injunction, but directed the defendant to maintain complete accounts of profits from the business at the shop, set apart those profits in its business bank account, and permitted use of 30 per cent of the profits in the usual course of business.

The defendant was directed to provide monthly statements to the plaintiff’s advocate by the seventh day of the following month and to give one month’s prior notice to the parties to the family settlement or their legal heirs before any assignment or transfer of the trade name.

Affidavits were directed on the timetable specified by the Court, with the matter listed for February 2027.