Bench says State notifications under Commercial Courts Act have created uncertainty over whether trademark suits must go before District Courts or notified Civil Judges.
The Supreme Court on September 21, 2026, referred to a larger bench a significant question concerning the jurisdiction of courts in trademark infringement suits under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal filed by I.S.D.S. Private Limited and another against M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd. and another. The core issue was whether Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, which bars institution of trademark infringement suits before any court inferior to a District Court, gets overridden by State notifications under the Commercial Courts Act that designate Civil Judges (Senior Division) as Commercial Courts.
The appellants argued that Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act was intended to ensure that trademark disputes are heard by District Courts, and that this legislative intent is diluted if State notifications allow such suits to be filed before Civil Judges (Senior Division). They contended that in Jharkhand, suits under Section 134 would now be instituted before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), with appeals lying to the District Court under the Commercial Courts Act, thereby limiting access to a full appeal before the High Court and confining parties largely to revision or Article 227 proceedings.
The respondents, however, relied on the Commercial Courts Act as a later and special legislation dealing with commercial disputes, including intellectual property disputes. They pointed to Section 2(1)(c)(xvii), which expressly includes intellectual property rights, and Section 21, which gives the Act overriding effect over inconsistent laws.
The Supreme Court examined earlier decisions, including Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation, Fun N. Fud v. GLK Associates, and Jaycee Housing Private Limited v. Registrar (General), Orissa High Court. The Court noted that while some precedents treated the Commercial Courts Act as overriding earlier procedural regimes, the present issue was different because the Trade Marks Act specifically confers jurisdiction on District Courts and the conflict arises when State notifications under the Commercial Courts Act designate Civil Judges as Commercial Courts.
The bench observed that the Commercial Courts Act covers the broader genus of commercial disputes, while intellectual property rights are only one species within that genus. It also noted that the Act permits High Courts to notify District Courts as Commercial Courts, but the difficulty arises when Civil Judges are notified instead. The Court further pointed out that this creates practical inconsistency across States, especially where pecuniary thresholds under the Commercial Courts Act differ from the jurisdictional mandate under the Trade Marks Act.
Finding that the issue had wider implications and required uniform resolution across States, the Supreme Court held that the matter must be decided by a larger bench. It directed that the case be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. The commercial suit pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Jamshedpur was also stayed.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 134, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 3, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 21, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 2(1)(c)(xvii)
I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd., (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2982653
