Jurisdiction over rectification of well-known trade marks is anchored to the Registry that recorded the entry.

The Petitioner filed a rectification petition under Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal of the marks ‘KEI’ and its logo from the Register and the List of Well-Known Trade Marks

Respondent No. 2, the registered proprietor, had previously filed an infringement suit (CS Comm No. 09/2021) against the Petitioner in the Delhi High Court

During the pendency of the Delhi suit, the Trade Marks Registry in Mumbai declared Respondent No. 2's marks as "well-known"

The Respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing that the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction because the parties are based in Delhi, the underlying registrations were granted in Delhi, and the Delhi suit was prior in time

Section 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates that rectification petitions be filed before "the High Court" having appellate jurisdiction over the relevant Trade Mark Registry

Section 11(8) of the Act to establish that a well-known mark is treated as a mark "for registration under this Act," thereby making it subject to rectification under Section 57

The court relied on Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. regarding the interplay between infringement suits and rectification

M/s. Woltop India Pvt. Ltd v. Union of India regarding the specific High Court’s nexus to the Registry

The principle of avoiding conflicting decisions as consolidated in Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. v. Inder Mohan Kapoor

The Court first determined that it possessed statutory jurisdiction because the specific "well-known" status entry was processed and recorded by the Mumbai Trade Marks Registry

It rejected Respondent No. 1's argument that "well-known" marks are separate from the Register, holding that Section 11(8) gives such marks the trappings of registration, thus making them amenable to Section 57 rectification

The Court observed that both parties are located in Delhi, the original registrations were granted in Delhi, and a prior infringement suit regarding the same marks was already active in the Delhi High Court

The Court reasoned that since the issues of validity, reputation, and use overlap significantly between the rectification petition and the Delhi suit, entertaining the petition in Mumbai would risk "jurisdictional chaos" and conflicting judicial findings

The Court concluded that the Delhi High Court is the more appropriate forum to ensure a coordinated adjudication of all related disputes

The Court upheld the preliminary objection of Respondent No. 2 and granted the Petitioner liberty to file appropriate proceedings before the Delhi High Court. The interim application and petition were disposed of accordingly.