Court Ruling on Substitution of Plaintiff in Trademark Dispute.
18 September 2024
Trademark Laws in India >> Intellectual Property Rights
In a recent ruling of Noor Afshan v/s Shiv Lock House & Others, regarding the substitution of a plaintiff in a trademark case, the court addressed the application made under Order XII Rule 10 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by Mr. Abdul Wahid, who sought to replace his deceased mother, Ms. Noor Afshan, as the plaintiff in an ongoing suit concerning the trademark "Koyo."
Background of the Case:
The applicant, Mr. Wahid, claimed that his mother had authorized him to prosecute the suit on her behalf before her passing on December 24, 2020. He argued that she had executed a Family Settlement-cum-Agreement in his favor on May 17, 2016, regarding the trademark at the center of the dispute. Following her death, Mr. Wahid filed an application with the Trade Mark Registry, asserting that he had become the sole owner of the trademark. To support his application, Mr. Wahid's counsel referenced several legal precedents where courts had previously permitted similar substitutions under comparable circumstances.
Opposition from the Defendant:
In response, the defendant's counsel argued that the application for substitution was improper since it was not filed within the mandatory timeframe outlined in Order XII Rule 3 CPC. They contended that the suit had already abated due to the plaintiff's death and pointed to Mr. Wahid's silence during cross-examination as a reason for skepticism regarding his claims.
The defense also raised concerns about the validity of the Agreement, citing insufficient stamp duty as a reason to question its legitimacy.
Court's Considerations:
The court carefully examined the situation, noting several critical points:
- Mr. Wahid is indeed the son of the deceased plaintiff.
- The Agreement concerning the trademark was executed during the suit's pendency.
- The plaintiff passed away while living with Mr. Wahid.
- Mr. Wahid had previously acted as a witness in the case without mentioning the Agreement.
- Despite these considerations, the court expressed concern over Mr. Wahid's prolonged inaction. More than six years had passed since the Agreement was executed, and no application had been filed to substitute the plaintiff until August 8, 2023. The court found this delay unexplainable and detrimental to the applicant's case.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, the court determined that there was no surviving right to sue on the part of Mr. Wahid and that he failed to provide sufficient reasons for allowing the substitution. Consequently, the application was dismissed, along with the suit itself, which was deemed abated due to non-prosecution. The court's ruling emphasized the importance of timely legal action and adherence to procedural requirements, particularly in cases involving the transfer of rights following a party's death. No costs were awarded, and all pending applications in the matter were also dismissed.
This decision serves as a reminder to legal practitioners and parties involved in litigation of the critical nature of prompt and diligent action in safeguarding their rights.