Bombay High Court │ Registrar entitled to determine the registered proprietor of the Trademark [ISKCON v. ISKCON]

Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of G.S. Patel and Gauri Godse, JJ. disposed of an appeal which was preferred by ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) Bengaluru aggrieved by the observations that this well-known trademark (ISKCON) is exclusively associated with the original Plaintiff (“Mumbai ISKCON”) and, by necessary implication, that Mumbai ISKCON is sole and exclusive registered proprietor of the mark in International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Iskcon Appaeral Pvt. Ltd., 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 729. 

 

The Court remarked that the appellant was not a defendant to the abovementioned suit, the order in question obviously cannot bind Bengaluru ISKCON. The Court further clarified that in its previous decision,  the observations of the Single Judge were not to be construed as finally determining any claims or contentions that the appellants may have in regard to proprietorship of the mark, as also whether theirs is a claim of exclusive proprietorship or of a right of concurrent user.  

 

Those contentions are left open for the appropriate proceedings before any forum including, we clarify, before the Registrar of Trademarks. The Registrar of Trademarks, is therefore, bound by the finding that ISKCON is well-known mark. As to who is entitled to the use of that mark or can be held to be its registered proprietor are questions expressly left open. 

 

[International Society for Krishna Consciousness Bangalore (ISKCON) v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON), Commercial Appeal (L) NO. 11675 of 2021, decided on 20-07-2022] 


Dr Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate, with Rashmin Khandekar, Karishni Khanna, MuralidharanKhadilkar & Aakash Joshi (MAG Legal) for the Applicant. 

Dr Veerandra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate, with Hiren Kamod, Vaibhav Keni, Neha Iyer, Prem Khullar & Anees Patel (Legasis Partners) for Respondent 1. 

*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief. 

 

 

Must Watch

The Supreme Court Collegium stated that every individual is entitled to maintain their own dignity and individuality, based on sexual orientation. Senior Advocate Kirpal’s openness about his orientation goes to his credit and rejecting his candidature on this ground would be contrary to the constitutional principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

We Recommend

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.