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

The Plaintiff (ITM) filed an infringement suit in 2015 regarding the "ITM Marks" against Defendant No. 3 (Samata).

In parallel, ITM initiated three rectification proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, while Samata filed 17 rectification applications before the IPAB (later transferred to the High Court).

By an order dated January 2, 2025, the 17 Samata Rectification Proceedings were clubbed with the Suit before the High Court.

ITM filed the present Transfer Application seeking to move its three pending rectification proceedings from the Registrar to the High Court to be heard alongside the existing 18 clubbed matters.

Samata opposed the transfer, arguing the Registrar is not a "Court" under Section 24 of the CPC and that the application was procedurally flawed.

1. Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks constitutes a "Court subordinate to the High Court" for the purposes of transfer under Section 24 of the CPC.

2. Whether the High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to transfer and consolidate proceedings from a tribunal to itself to ensure the ends of justice.

3. Whether the absence of specific Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Rules in the Bombay High Court precludes the exercise of transfer powers.

Section 24 of the CPC, which grants High Courts general power to withdraw and transfer proceedings from subordinate courts.

Section 151 of the CPC regarding the inherent power of the court to prevent the abuse of process and meet the ends of justice.

Section 127 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which clothes the Registrar with the trappings of a civil court (receiving evidence, issuing discovery, etc.).

Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which makes the Registrar's decisions appealable to the High Court.

Supreme Court decision in Bhagwati Devi v. I.S. Goel, which treated the MACT as a "Civil Court" for transfer purposes.

Distinction made regarding Nahar Industrial Enterprises Ltd v. HSBC, noting that subordination is established where a statutory appeal lies to the High Court.

The Court reasoned that the term "Court" in Section 24 must be interpreted contextually rather than restricted to a universal definition.

Since the Registrar and the High Court share concurrent jurisdiction over rectification (Sections 47 & 57) and the Registrar's findings can bind a court in infringement suits (Section 124), the Registrar functions as a court of first instance.

The Court held that "subordination" is confirmed by the statutory right of appeal to the High Court under Section 91.

It further determined that the principle of forum conveniens and the need to avoid divergent parallel outcomes necessitate consolidation.

Regarding procedural objections, the Court held that under Rule 835 of the Bombay High Court Original Side Rules, and in light of the General Clauses Act, trademark matters are governed by Chapter XLV, allowing the use of the CPC for matters not specifically provided for.

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of special IPD rules (like Delhi's) limits substantive power, citing Delhi Science Forum, which held that statutory power is not incapacitated by a lack of subordinate rules.

The Transfer Application was allowed. The Court directed the Registrar to transmit the records of the three ITM Rectification Applications to the High Court Registry within six weeks to be converted into Commercial Miscellaneous Petitions and tagged with the existing Suit and Samata Rectifications.