- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in India
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
- within Intellectual Property, Employment and HR and Environment topic(s)
The Supreme Court of India, by its judgment dated 22.01.2026, in the matter of Gloster Limited v. Gloster Cables Limited & Ors.1, held that the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) cannot adjudicate dispute on the ownership of a trademark if it is not related to the insolvency proceedings and cannot grant a declaration contrary to the terms of a resolution plan approved by the Committee of Creditors (“COC”) and the NCLT itself.
In the present case, NCLT Kolkata held that the trademark “Gloster” was the asset of the Corporate Debtor, i.e., Fort Gloster Industries Limited and therefore, the Successful Resolution Applicant (“SRA”), i.e., Gloster Limited, having taken over the Corporate Debtor, became entitled to the said trademark. On an appeal filed before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) by Gloster Cables Limited (“GCL”), it was held that the trademark “Gloster” vested with GCL by execution of a Supplemental Trademark Agreement for assignment of the trademark, subject to the condition that it became effective after restraint order passed by Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“BIFR”) under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 was vacated.
The court held that NCLT cannot, in exercise of its powers under Section 60(5)(c) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), decide on the issue of the title of the trademark since it is not in relation to the insolvency proceedings. It was held that a resolution plan approved by the COC and ultimately, by NCLT is the charter by which stakeholders are governed. Any grant of further rights over and above what is recognized in the resolution plan would amount to modification or alteration of the approved resolution plan. Accordingly, the court held that the findings of NCLT Kolkata in the present case is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and the observations of the NCLAT to the effect that the trademark vests with GCL cannot be sustained as it is a matter over which NCLT could not have enquired into considering the facts and circumstances.
Footnote
1. Civil Appeal No. 2996 of 2024 with Civil Appeal No. 4493 of 2024.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
