IPR Disputes On Same Issues Can Be Heard Together Even If Pending in Non-Commercial Courts: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently ruled that intellectual property disputes involving the same or overlapping issues should be heard together to prevent parallel cases and conflicting decisions, even if some of those cases are pending before non-commercial courts.

The court said its power to transfer cases under the Code of Civil Procedure is broad and continues to apply to intellectual property disputes. This power is not limited by the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules, which mention consolidation mainly in the context of commercial courts.

“A harmonious reading of Rule 26 of the IPD Rules and Section 24 of the CPC makes it clear that Rule 26 of the IPD Rules does not curtail the power of this Court to transfer available under Section 24 of the CPC in any case including matters involving same or related IPR subject matter,” the court observed.

Justice Tejas Karia passed the order on December 4, 2025, while allowing a request to move a trademark and copyright infringement suit from the Patiala House District Court to the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court.

The dispute dates back to 2016. Rahul Khanna had sued Surinder Kumar for trademark and copyright infringement over the use of the mark “PRAKASH” on self-adhesive electrical insulation tapes. Kumar later filed a counterclaim, alleging that Khanna was using the same mark and an identical artistic label. Kumar also filed a separate copyright rectification petition relating to the same artwork, which is already pending before the High Court's IPD.

Kumar asked the High Court to transfer the district court suit and the counterclaim to the IPD so that all related issues could be decided together.

Khanna opposed the request. He argued that the IPD Rules allow consolidation only when cases are pending before Commercial Courts, not ordinary civil courts. He also said the district court case had reached the stage of final arguments and that a transfer at this point would cause prejudice.

The High Court rejected these objections. It held that the IPD Rules cannot be read as restricting the High Court's statutory power to transfer cases.

“The aim of Section 24 of the CPC and Rule 26 of IPD Rules is the same to avoid multiplicity of proceeding and conflicting decision involving the same subject matter. In IPR matters, where the parties have multiple legal remedies before various forums, it would be expedient to ensure that rights flowing from the same or related IPR subject matters are decided at once by single Court.”, it said

It noted that all three proceedings arose from the same set of intellectual property rights and that evidence recorded in the civil suit was already being relied upon in the rectification case.

In such a situation, the court said, transfer was necessary “to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, parallel adjudication and conflicting decisions.”

The High Court therefore directed that the trademark suit and the counterclaim be transferred from the district court to the Intellectual Property Division and heard together with the pending copyright rectification petition.