Registrar of Trade Marks constitutes a subordinate court for transfer and consolidation of rectification proceedings under Section 24 CPC.

The Plaintiff (ITM) filed a suit in 2015 against the Defendant (Samata) regarding the alleged abuse of the "ITM Marks"

ITM had initiated three rectification proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks between 2014 and 2015 seeking cancellation of Samata’s registrations

Conversely, Samata filed 17 rectification applications against ITM before the IPAB, which, following the IPAB’s disbandment, were transferred to the Bombay High Court

By an order dated January 2, 2025, Samata’s 17 proceedings were clubbed with the Suit

ITM subsequently filed the present Transfer Application (IA No. 3128/2025) as an Interim Application within the Suit, seeking to transfer its three pending rectification proceedings from the Registrar to the High Court for consolidated adjudication

Section 24 of the CPC, which grants High Courts general powers to withdraw and transfer suits or proceedings from subordinate courts

Section 151 of the CPC regarding inherent powers to meet the ends of justice

Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which clothes the Registrar with the trappings of a civil court

Section 91, which establishes the High Court's appellate jurisdiction over the Registrar

Rule 835 of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, trademark matters are governed by the specialized Chapter XLV

The Court rejected the argument that the Registrar is not a "Court," reasoning that the Registrar exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court in rectification matters and possesses civil court powers under Section 127

Since decisions of the Registrar are appealable to the High Court under Section 91, the Registrar is "subordinate" to the High Court for the purposes of Section 24 of the CPC

The Judge held that denuding the High Court of the power to transfer would lead to "fragmented litigation" and "divergent parallel outcomes"

Regarding procedural objections, the Court held that even in the absence of specific IPR Rules (unlike the Delhi High Court), the substantive power of transfer remains

The Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to transmit the records of the three ITM Rectification Applications to the High Court Registry within six weeks. The Registry was ordered to convert these into Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions and tag them with the existing Suit and the 17 other rectification applications for consolidated hearing