Substitution of Party Based on Assignment Stayed Pending Determination of Form TM-P by Registrar

The Petitioner filed a Rectification Petition against Respondent No. 2 (Mr. Tarsem Chand) challenging the Trade Mark ‘DOUBLE KABOOTAR BRAND’

During the pendency of the petition, Respondent No. 2 executed an Assignment Deed dated 01.08.2025, transferring rights in the mark to his wife, Mrs. Sunita Devi (the Applicant)

The Applicant filed Form TM-P before the Registrar of Trade Marks on 04.08.2025 to record the assignment

The Applicant moved the present application (I.A. 24863/2025) under Order XXII Rule 10 of the CPC to be substituted as Respondent No. 2

The Petitioner opposed the substitution, alleging the assignment was a fraudulent attempt to evade litigation and noted that the Court had previously remarked that the supporting affidavit was ex-facie false for failing to disclose the pending litigation

1. Whether an applicant can be substituted as a party under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC based on an assignment deed when the recordal of such assignment is still pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks

2. Whether the suspicious timing of an assignment between spouses during active litigation precludes immediate impleadment/substitution

The Court applied Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the substitution of parties in cases of assignment or devolution of interest during the pendency of a suit

It further relied on the Trade Marks Act, 1999, specifically regarding the requirement that a person must be recognized as the "proprietor" in the Register of Trade Marks to exercise statutory rights

the principle that discretionary relief under the CPC cannot be granted where the underlying transaction appears prima facie non-bonafide or sub-judice before another authority

The Court observed that the Assignment Deed was executed on 01.08.2025, and Form TM-P was filed just days before the first hearing of the Rectification Petition on 08.08.2025

Despite the same counsel representing both the assignor and assignee, the assignment was not disclosed to the Court during the initial hearing

The Court found the explanation—that the parties were unaware of the litigation—unconvincing given the chronological proximity of the filing and the appearance of counsel

Crucially, the Court reasoned that until the Registrar of Trade Marks act upon Form TM-P and reflects the Applicant's name in the Register, Respondent No. 2 remains the legal "registered proprietor"

Granting substitution at this stage would be premature as it would bypass the Registrar’s statutory duty to evaluate the validity of the assignment

The Court dismissed the application for substitution at this stage. It granted the Applicant liberty to approach the Court again for substitution if and when the Registrar allows the application in Form TM-P after considering the factual suspicions noted by the Court. The matter was listed for further proceedings on 20.08.2026