Legal provisions involved: Section 12,14, 60(5)(c) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Sections 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, TradeMarks Act, 1999
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. V. Viswanathan.
Facts
This case came from the insolvency process of Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. During CIRP, the NCLT, Kolkata declared the trademark “Gloster” to be an asset of the corporate debtor. However, Gloster Cables Limited claimed that it owned the trademark based on agreements made much before insolvency. The trademark dispute already existed before the insolvency proceedings began.
Key legal provisions
Section 12,14, 60(5)(c) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Sections 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
Issues raised
Can the NCLT decide ownership of a trademark simply because the dispute arises during insolvency proceedings?
Arguments of the case
The applicant argued that the trademark belonged to the corporate debtor and passed it under the resolution plan. Gloster Cables Limited argued that trademark ownership is a civil dispute and cannot be decided by insolvency tribunals.
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that disputes about trademark ownership that existed before insolvency do not fall under NCLT’s jurisdiction. Insolvency courts cannot decide civil or IP disputes. Such matters must be decided by civil courts or appropriate forums. The NCLT’s order was set aside.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
