To arrive at an answer, it is important to first analyze the evolution of the trade mark statutes in India. The first codified statute that governed trade marks law in India, namely, the Trade Marks Act, 1940, defined “High Court” as “in relation to any State, the High Court for that State…”. This definition failed to provide clarity on which High Court would have jurisdiction to hear cancellation petitions. Given this, the ambiguity in the definition was done away with by Section 3 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958, which defined a “High Court” having jurisdiction as the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate jurisdiction the office of the Registry is situated. Thereafter, in 2003, the IPAB was established pursuant to Article 41 of the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), and the powers to try and entertain trade mark cancellation petitions were transferred from High Courts to the IPAB, which was incorporated under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“TM Act”). This resulted in the definition of “High Court” being removed from the statute. In 2021, with the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act (“TRA”), the IPAB, among other tribunals, was abolished and the powers to hear cancellation petitions were once again transferred to High Courts, however, the definition of a “High Court” was not re-inserted.
Source: Barandbench
