Section 124 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Section 124 is the civil-suit counterpart of section 113. When a defendant in an infringement suit says the plaintiff's registration is invalid (or the plaintiff says so of the defendant's), the court either stays the suit because rectification is already pending, or raises an issue and adjourns for three months so that the party can apply for rectification. The court can still grant interim relief during the stay. For a live suit, legal dispute resolution support is advisable.
If rectification proceedings are already pending before the Registrar or the High Court, the suit is stayed until they are finally disposed of. If none is pending and the plea of invalidity is prima facie tenable, the court raises an issue and adjourns for three months so the party can apply to the High Court. If the party applies in time, the trial stays; if not, the issue is deemed abandoned. The stay does not stop interlocutory orders.
A note on the wording
Section 124, as enacted, says "Appellate Board" in sub-section (1)(i) and (ii). The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, in its clause (t), substitutes "High Court" for "Appellate Board" wherever it occurs in sections 124 and 125. Before the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 this read "Appellate Board". The current wording is used below.
When section 124 applies
Sub-section (1) applies "where in any suit for infringement of a trade mark":
- (a) the defendant pleads that the registration of the plaintiff's trade mark is invalid; or
- (b) the defendant raises a defence under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of section 30 and the plaintiff pleads the invalidity of registration of the defendant's trade mark.
The court trying the suit is called "the court". This article does not go into the content of section 30(2)(e).
The two routes in sub-section (1)
| Clause | Situation | What the court does |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | Any proceedings for rectification of the register in relation to the plaintiff's or defendant's mark are pending before the Registrar or the High Court | Stay the suit pending the final disposal of such proceedings |
| (ii) | No such proceedings are pending and the court is satisfied that the plea of invalidity is prima facie tenable | Raise an issue on it and adjourn for three months from the date of framing the issue, to enable the party concerned to apply to the High Court for rectification |
In clause (i) the word is "shall". The stay is not discretionary where rectification is already pending.
Sub-sections (2) and (3): what follows
- Sub-section (2): if the party proves to the court that he has made the application "within the time specified therein or within such extended time as the court may for sufficient cause allow", the trial of the suit stands stayed until final disposal of the rectification proceedings.
- Sub-section (3): if no application has been made within the time or extended time, the issue as to invalidity is deemed to have been abandoned and the court proceeds with the suit on the other issues.
A drafting point: sub-section (2) of the Act refers to "clause (b)(ii) of sub-section (1)". Sub-section (1) has no clause (b)(ii) in that sense: clause (b) is the second plea and the numbered clauses (i) and (ii) follow the opening words. The three-month adjournment is in clause (ii) of sub-section (1), and that is what the reference means.
Example. Rao Spices sues Das Foods for infringement of "KESAR GOLD". Das pleads that Rao's registration is invalid. No rectification case is pending. The court finds the plea prima facie tenable, frames an issue on 4 April and adjourns until 4 July. Das files for rectification in the High Court on 20 May and proves it to the court. The trial stays until the rectification is finally disposed of. If Das had not applied by 4 July, and no extension was granted, the issue would be deemed abandoned and the suit would proceed on the other issues.
Sub-section (4): the result binds
"The final order made in any rectification proceedings referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be binding upon the parties and the court shall dispose of the suit conformably to such order in so far as it relates to the issue as to the validity of the registration of the trade mark."
The suit court therefore follows the rectification result on validity. It does not decide that question for itself.
Sub-section (5): interim orders still possible
"The stay of a suit for the infringement of a trade mark under this section shall not preclude the court from making any interlocutory order (including any order granting an injunction, directing account to be kept, appointing a receiver or attaching any property) during the period of the stay of the suit."
| Interim order named in the text | Available during the stay? |
|---|---|
| Injunction | Yes |
| Direction that an account be kept | Yes |
| Appointment of a receiver | Yes |
| Attachment of property | Yes |
| Any other interlocutory order | Yes, the list is introduced by "including" |
So a plaintiff does not lose interim protection because the suit is stayed. The section does not say on what standard such orders are given.
Section 124 compared with section 113
| Section 113 (criminal case) | Section 124 (civil suit) | |
|---|---|---|
| Proceeding | Prosecution under ss.103–105 | Suit for infringement |
| Who pleads invalidity | The accused | The defendant (or the plaintiff against a s.30(2)(e) defence) |
| Time given | Three months from the plea | Three months from framing of the issue |
| If no application | Court proceeds as if the registration were valid | The issue is deemed abandoned |
| Pending rectification | Stay (sub-section (2)) | Stay (sub-section (1)(i)) |
For which forum hears the rectification itself, see section 125.
Practical points
- Check at the outset whether any rectification proceeding already exists against either mark; if so, the stay is mandatory.
- If you are the party questioning validity, file the High Court application inside the three months and take proof of filing to the suit court.
- If you need more time, ask the court for an extension and show sufficient cause.
- Plaintiffs should seek interim orders; the stay does not bar them.
Need help with an infringement suit where validity is in issue?
When validity is pleaded, two proceedings run side by side and the three-month period is short. Our legal dispute resolution team can plan the rectification application, the court filings and the interim relief together.
Key takeaways
- Section 124 applies to infringement suits where invalidity of registration is pleaded.
- If rectification is already pending before the Registrar or the High Court, the suit shall be stayed.
- Otherwise, if the plea is prima facie tenable, the court frames an issue and adjourns for three months.
- No application in time means the issue is deemed abandoned; an application in time means the trial stays.
- The rectification order binds the parties; interlocutory orders remain possible during the stay.
- Before the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 the text said "Appellate Board".
Read next
- Section 125: rectification application to be made to the High Court
- Section 113: procedure where the accused pleads invalidity of registration
- Civil remedies for trademark infringement: injunction and damages
- Rectification and removal of a trademark from the register
Disclaimer: Based on the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as amended by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023, as consulted on 1 October 2026. Forms, fees and procedure are set by the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 as amended from time to time. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.