Writ jurisdiction cannot decide trademark infringement disputes; the proper remedy lies before the statutory forum under trade mark law.

A writ petition under Article 226 was held not maintainable for a proprietary dispute over alleged trademark infringement and passing off, because such issues fall within the statutory domain of the competent forum under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court also found that the petitioner, as merely a member of the third respondent, was not the person aggrieved in relation to the claimed trademark right and therefore lacked locus standi to seek writ relief. The existence of an efficacious statutory remedy was treated as the proper course, and the petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue remedies under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to resolve a dispute concerning the use of an acronym claimed as a registered trademark, and whether the petitioner had locus standi to seek such relief.

Analysis: The dispute was found to be essentially between the two professional bodies over the use of the acronym, which the third respondent claimed as its registered trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that questions of infringement and passing off fall within the statutory domain of the competent forum under the Trade Marks Act, and that the writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate remedy for such a proprietary trademark dispute. It was also noted that the petitioner, being only a member of the third respondent, was not the person aggrieved in respect of the alleged trademark infringement and therefore lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the writ petition. The availability of an efficacious statutory remedy was treated as the proper course for adjudication of the dispute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed, with liberty to the parties to pursue appropriate remedies under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition under Article 226 is not the proper remedy for adjudicating a dispute over alleged trademark infringement or passing off, which must be pursued before the competent statutory forum by the person who owns or is aggrieved by the trademark right.

---