Short Summary
The petitioner, an operational creditor, entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with the respondent to use a family of marks in lieu of securing an outstanding debt. The trial court granted an ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from suspending this PUA. The appellate court stayed this injunction, arguing that civil courts lacked jurisdiction under the IBC and Companies Act. The High Court set aside the stay order, finding that the suit was maintainable as a collateral security agreement.
Detailed Summary
When a company owes money and cannot pay, what can a creditor accept as security? Cash is the obvious answer, but what about something far more valuable — the right to use a trademark? This case explores a fascinating intersection of intellectual property, insolvency law, and contract enforcement, where a family of marks became the currency of debt settlement, and one party fought all the way to the High Court to protect that arrangement.
Prashant Properties Limited, acting as an operational creditor, found itself in a commercial relationship with SPS Steels Rolling Mills Ltd. To secure an outstanding debt owed to it, Prashant Properties entered into a Permissive User Agreement (PUA) with SPS Steels. Under this arrangement, Prashant Properties was granted the right to use a family of marks belonging to SPS Steels, effectively treating the brand itself as a form of collateral security. The relationship, however, soured when SPS Steels moved to suspend the PUA. Faced with the potential loss of its permitted use of the marks, Prashant Properties approached the trial court, which granted an ad interim injunction restraining SPS Steels from suspending the agreement. SPS Steels then appealed, and the appellate court stayed the trial court's injunction, holding that civil courts lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter given the framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Companies Act.
Prashant Properties argued that the suit before the civil court was fundamentally about the enforcement of a collateral security arrangement — specifically, the Permissive User Agreement governing the use of trademarks. The relief sought was a declaration and perpetual injunction to protect its right to use the marks under the PUA, which was independent of any monetary recovery. On the other side, SPS Steels and the appellate court leaned on the jurisdictional boundaries created by the IBC and the Companies Act, suggesting that the dispute should be routed through specialized tribunals rather than ordinary civil courts. The core legal friction was this: Can a civil court entertain a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief tied to a collateral security agreement, when a money claim arising from the same underlying transaction is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)?
The High Court stepped in and set aside the appellate court's stay order, delivering a favorable outcome for Prashant Properties. The Court found that the suit was maintainable in the civil court because it was rooted in a collateral security agreement — the PUA — and the relief sought (declaration and perpetual injunction regarding the use of the trademark family) was independent of the primary declaratory relief. In essence, the Court drew a clear distinction between a money claim that might properly belong before the NCLT and a suit seeking to protect and enforce rights under a security arrangement, which could be adjudicated by the civil court. By restoring the trial court's ad interim injunction, the High Court reaffirmed that the nature of the relief sought, not merely the existence of a related financial dispute, determines where jurisdiction lies.
For founders, startups, and IP professionals, this case offers a critical lesson: when structuring creative security arrangements — such as using trademarks or brand assets as collateral through permissive user agreements — it is essential to recognize that different types of relief may travel to different forums. A monetary claim tied to an underlying debt may fall under the NCLT's jurisdiction, but a suit seeking to declare and protect your right to use a mark under a collateral security agreement can independently be maintained before a civil court. The key is ensuring that the relief you seek is genuinely independent of the primary monetary dispute. Draft your PUAs and collateral security agreements with this jurisdictional clarity in mind, and you will preserve your ability to enforce your IP rights even when insolvency proceedings loom in the background.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side). Understanding the court's reasoning in Prashant Properties Limited vs Sps Steels Rolling Mills Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Tv Today Network LimitedvsCapital Tv And Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Tv Today Network Limited against Capital TV and others. The court found a prima facie case of passing off and trademark infringement, noting that the defendants were imitating the plaintiff's distinctive program names and logos across various digital platforms. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using deceptively similar marks for news/current affairs programs and ordered to take down all infringing links online.
Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd.vsBubalus Beverages
In this trademark infringement matter before the Bombay High Court, Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. sought urgent relief against Bubalus Beverages for continuing to infringe upon their mark despite a prior consent decree. While the plaintiff pressed for immediate action due to the defendant's alleged continued deception, the court granted a short adjournment. The parties are scheduled to be listed again on November 26, 2021, for hearing on ad-interim relief.
Triumphant Institute Of Management Education Pvt. Ltd.vsMega Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed a copyright infringement suit filed by Triumphant Institute of Management against Mega Limited. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's claims regarding its registered trademark 'TIME' and copyrighted study materials. However, recognizing the intermediary status of the defendant, the court issued an interim order stipulating that the defendant must take down infringing content only upon receiving specific notice (URLs) from the plaintiff, aligning with safe harbor provisions under the IT Act.
Preeti / Kosmos GlobalvsSuresh R. Jain
This case involved allegations by Preeti (Kosmos Global) against Suresh R. Jain for infringing their registered copyright and passing off their hair colour products under the trademark 'BEAUTE BLANC'. The dispute centered on the defendant's use of a similar pack/carton design and the name 'Skenique'. Ultimately, both parties reached a settlement agreement, leading to the court decreeing the suit based on the terms of the joint memo.
Walmart Apollo LlcvsAayush Jain & Anr.
The Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by Walmart Apollo LLC alleging continued trademark infringement by the defendants, who were reportedly still using the mark 'WMART' despite a prior interim injunction. The court noted the defendants' willingness to propose a change of mark ('WM BAZAAR') in exchange for waiving costs and damages. Ultimately, the Court issued notice to the defendants and set deadlines for filing replies on various related applications, keeping the litigation active.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.