For more intellectual property updates, follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Written by Maria Therese Syriac, Legal intern, and verified by Sunil Jose, Managing Attorney, Suns Legal.

C.K. Chandran v. Manju. [OP (FC) NO. 591 OF 2024]

Introduction

In an interesting trademark dispute that intertwines family law and intellectual property rights, the Kerala High Court recently addressed a dispute involving the trademark “CALLUNA” between a married couple. The case, which came before Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha, highlight challenges that arise when business assets and trademark rights become entangled in matrimonial disputes.

A husband and wife were fighting over their shops named “CALLUNA”, and the husband wanted to prevent his wife from entering these shops. The case of C.K. Chandran vs. Manju (OP (FC) No. 591 of 2024) took a new turn when the wife said the business name “CALLUNA” legally belonged to her. This made the court think about whether family courts should handle trademark disputes at all. The decision helps us understand how courts should deal with cases where family problems deal with IP rights.

The Case

The dispute originated in the Family Court at Ettumanoor, Kottayam, in Kerala, when C.K. Chandran, the petitioner, filed a petition (OP No.1509/2021) seeking to prevent his wife Manju from entering two shop rooms in Changanacherry. These establishments operated under the name “CALLUNA.” Following this, Manju, the respondent in this case, filed a counterclaim, asserting her ownership of the “CALLUNA” trademark and requesting a permanent injunction against Chandran’s use of the mark.

The Family Court’s handling of the case produced two significant outcomes. First, it rejected Chandran’s application (I.A.No.1/2021) for an injunction against Manju to prevent her from entering the shops. Second, the court approved Manju’s application (I.A.No.10/2022), resulting in an Order that prevented Chandran from using the ‘CALLUNA’ trademark. Chandran is also required to remove the ‘CALLUNA’ name from all business signage and social media platforms.

Issues Before the High Court

The appeal to the High Court centred on the Family Court’s Order regarding the trademark injunction. The High Court identified several procedural irregularities in how the Family Court approached the trademark dispute. Most notably, the Family Court had failed to address whether it could entertain a counterclaim that extended beyond the scope of the original petition.

Additionally, questions arose about the consistency of granting injunction with previous findings about the nature of the business relationship between the parties.

The High Court’s examination revealed two fundamental flaws in the Family Court’s order. First, the Court noted an apparent contradiction, the Family Court had previously established that Chandran held the shops as a trustee for Manju’s benefit, a finding that remained unchallenged. The broad trademark injunction against Chandran could undermine this trust relationship and harm Manju’s interests.

Second, the High Court found that the Family Court had failed to address an essential jurisdictional question, that is, whether a counterclaim seeking relief beyond the original petition’s scope was legally maintainable. The Family Court had proceeded on the assumption that the counterclaim was confined to the subject matter of the original petition without providing any legal reasoning for this assumption.

The High Court’s Verdict

In response to these issues, the High Court set aside the portion of the Family Court’s order dealing with the trademark injunction (I.A.No.10/2022). It directed the Family Court to reconsider the application within one month, with specific instructions to hear both parties and address all objections, including those regarding maintainability. The High Court emphasized that the new order must provide clear reasoning for its conclusions.

The judgment establishes three requirements for Family Courts handling trademark matters. First, they must explicitly analyze their jurisdiction when dealing with counterclaims that extend beyond the original petition’s scope. Second, courts must ensure their Orders are consistent with previous unchallenged findings. Third, all Orders must provide clear reasoning, particularly when addressing maintainability objections and defining the scope of any injunction.

Analysis of The Judgment

The High Court’s ruling in the Calluna case addresses a gap in Indian jurisprudence regarding the intersection of intellectual property rights and matrimonial disputes.

First, the decision recognizes the practical challenges Family Courts face when dealing with commercial matters. While Family Courts routinely handle property division in matrimonial cases, trademark disputes require specialized consideration of intellectual property law. The High Court’s insistence on jurisdictional analysis provides much-needed guidance for Family Courts encountering such cases.

Second, the judgment requires the Family Court to reconsider the trademark injunction while specifically addressing maintainability objections; the High Court ensures that procedural oversight doesn’t lead to potentially harmful consequences. This is particularly relevant given the rise of family-owned businesses where commercial and matrimonial interests frequently overlap.

Third, and perhaps most significantly, the contradiction between treating the husband as a trustee while simultaneously barring him from using the trademarks shows how blanket injunctions in family matters can have unintended consequences.

However, the judgment leaves some questions unanswered. For instance, it doesn’t address the extent to which Family Courts can consider trademark validity or infringement claims – matters typically reserved for specialized intellectual property tribunals. Future cases need to establish clearer boundaries between family law jurisdiction and intellectual property rights adjudication.

Conclusion

The judgment sets clear parameters for Family Courts handling trademark disputes within matrimonial proceedings, emphasising the need for reasoned orders that address jurisdictional questions and consider the already established property relationships between parties.