Bombay High Court’s Directive on Jurisdictional Suit
The Bombay High Court has recently directed footwear retail giant Metro Brands Limited to pursue its passing off claim against Kerala-based MetBrands Private Limited in the courts of Kerala. This development came in the case of Metro Brands Limited v MetBrands Private Limited.
Jurisdictional Observations by Justice Godse
Justice Gauri Godse presided over the matter and concluded that Kerala is the more suitable jurisdiction for resolving the dispute. The rationale behind this decision is that the cause of action originated in Kerala, where both businesses are operational. The court emphasized that both the trademark infringement and passing off claims fall under the jurisdiction of Kerala, pointing out that Metro Brands operates 18 stores within the state.
Justice Godse also addressed the issue of forum selection under Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing that this choice must be exercised judiciously.
Background of the Legal Dispute
Since 2025, Metro Brands Limited has been involved in legal proceedings against MetBrands, accusing the latter of using its registered trademarks such as “METRO” and “METRO BRANDS” without authorization. Metro Brands, known for its chain of footwear and accessory stores across India, sought legal redress in the Bombay High Court and was initially granted ad-interim protection in April 2025, owing to MetBrands’ failure to respond or appear in court. The court had initially found a prima facie resemblance between the trademarks used by MetBrands and those of Metro Brands.
Petition to Combine Causes of Action
During the ongoing litigation, Metro Brands filed a petition under clause 14 of the Letters Patent, seeking to combine its infringement and passing off claims to be heard before the Bombay High Court. Metro Brands argued that the alleged passing off occurred outside the High Court’s territorial jurisdiction, justifying the request to consolidate the actions in Mumbai.
MetBrands’ Argument and Court’s Decision
In opposition, MetBrands contended that as a smaller entity based in Kerala, facing litigation far from its base would impose undue hardship. The Bombay High Court agreed that since Metro Brands did not exclusively conduct its business in Mumbai, both the infringement and passing off claims could feasibly be pursued in Kerala.
The court highlighted that obtaining leave under clause 14 of the Bombay High Court Letters Patent is discretionary and not merely procedural. It further observed that conducting proceedings in Kerala would not lead to multiplicity of litigation and would be more convenient, given the origin of the cause of action.
Consequently, the court dismissed Metro Brands’ leave petition, directing the company to pursue the matter in Kerala.
Legal Representation
Metro Brands was represented by Advocates Rashmin Khandekar, Alhan Kayser, Prateek Pansare, Hitisha Patel, and Varsha Vasave, instructed by Avesh Kayser. MetBrands was represented by Advocate Manas Hameed, instructed by Hemali Kurne.
