Plaintiff Favorable
440 plaintiff favorable decisions from Madras High Court.
Plaintiff Favorable Decisions
440 cases | Page 9 of 15
World Animal Protection v.The Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned the Trademark Examiner's rejection of World Animal Protection's device mark application. Although the court acknowledged that the individual words are descriptive, it ruled that when considered as a composite device mark, the registration was sufficiently distinctive to warrant protection. The appeal was allowed, allowing the trademark application to proceed to advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over the constituent words.
Insta Rooms Private Limited v.The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court overturned a rejection of Insta Rooms Private Limited's device mark application. The Examiner had objected that the mark was highly descriptive of temporary accommodation services. However, the court ruled that when considered as a whole—including the visual elements (bed and lamp) alongside the words 'Insta Rooms Book Instantly'—the mark possesses sufficient distinctiveness to overcome the Section 9 objections. The registration was allowed, though with a caveat limiting the appellant's exclusive rights over the individual words 'insta' or 'rooms'.
Frenway Products Inc. v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned a refusal of trademark registration granted by the Assistant Registrar. Frenway Products Inc., seeking to register a device mark for handtools, challenged the objections raised under Sections 9 (lack of distinctiveness) and 11 (likelihood of confusion). The court found the Section 9 objection untenable, noting the mark was not generic or descriptive. Furthermore, it noted that the cited conflicting mark had lapsed, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
Frenway Products Inc. v.The Assistant Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court overturned a refusal of trademark registration granted by the Assistant Registrar. Frenway Products Inc., seeking to register a device mark for handtools, challenged the objections raised under Sections 9 (lack of distinctiveness) and 11 (likelihood of confusion). The court found the Section 9 objection untenable, noting the mark was not generic or descriptive. Furthermore, it noted that the cited conflicting mark had lapsed, allowing the application to proceed to advertisement.
CCL Product (India) Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside the Registrar's refusal to register CCL Product's device mark 'CONTINENTAL WITH TWO COFFEE BEANS AT THE TOP.' The court found that the initial rejection failed to adequately consider the appellant's prior registrations and use, particularly across both Class 30 (beverages) and Class 11 (appliances). While allowing registration to proceed, the Court imposed a limitation on its use in Class 11, restricting it specifically to beverage vending and dispensing machines.
British Engines (UK) Limited v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed British Engines (UK) Limited's appeal against the Trade Marks Registry's refusal of its mark. The court found that the Registrar's decision was unsustainable because it failed to adequately address the appellant's arguments regarding the device nature and international use of the mark. Consequently, the application was permitted to proceed to advertisement, though with a crucial caveat: the appellant cannot claim exclusive rights over the individual words 'British' or 'Engines'.
Sri.Hitesh Chouhan, Proprietor M/s.Metro Marketing v.Sri.Ganapathlal, Proprietor M/s.Jaya Stationery
The Madras High Court allowed the petition seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'LEO' registered by Sri.Ganapathlal. The court found that the respondent adopted a near-identical mark for identical goods (rubber bands), and this adoption was deemed dishonest and fraudulent, especially given prior undertakings to change the branding. Consequently, the registration certificate was cancelled, maintaining the purity of the trademark register.
United Biotech Private Limited v.Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited
The Madras High Court allowed United Biotech Private Limited's petition seeking the removal of the trade mark 'ONCONASE' (No. 447044) registered in favour of Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited. The court found that the mark had not been used since its registration, thereby satisfying the grounds for cancellation under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the Registrar was directed to remove the entry from the Register within four weeks.
M/s.VP Enterprises v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed M/s.VP Enterprises' appeal, overturning the Senior Examiner's rejection of their trade mark registration application (3894824). The court found that despite objections citing conflicting marks under Section 11(1), the appellant's composite mark was distinctive and distinguishable from the cited marks. Furthermore, evidence of prior use and an existing registration for an identical device in relation to the same services supported the appeal. Consequently, the application was directed to proceed to advertisement.
M/s.Sree Krishna Pipes v.M/s.Premier PVC Industry
The Madras High Court allowed M/s. Sree Krishna Pipes' petition, directing the removal of a conflicting trademark registration (No. 1120546) held by M/s. Premier PVC Industry. The court found that despite minor spelling differences ('PREMIER' vs 'Preemier'), both marks were used for identical goods—PVC pipes—and their near-identical nature was highly likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers. This ruling reinforces the principle of preventing consumer confusion in trademark law, even when slight variations exist.
Feroke Boards Limited v.Universal Hardware
The Madras High Court allowed rectification petitions filed by Feroke Boards Limited against Universal Hardware and the Registrar of Trademarks. The court found that the petitioner had prior use rights for marks like 'FERO' and 'FEROPLY' since 1990, in a near-identical business sector (boards and construction materials). Despite the respondent's attempt to distinguish their composite marks by adding initials ('MK'), the court ruled that this adoption was not honest and was likely to cause consumer confusion. Consequently, the infringing trademark entries were removed from the register.
M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/s. Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd., setting aside an order that had deemed its opposition to a trademark application abandoned. The core issue revolved around whether a communication sent to the Mumbai office, despite being addressed to the Chennai Registry, constituted substantial compliance with the Trade Marks Rules. The court ruled in favor of the appellant, finding that there was sufficient compliance and remanding the matter for fresh consideration on merits.
Pfizer Products Inc. v.R. Hanumantha Rao
Pfizer Products Inc. successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to expunge the registration of the trademark VECOREX (No. 980006) from the register. The court noted that the mark had not been renewed since December 29, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the entry within four weeks, effectively clearing the mark for potential use by the petitioner.
Paymate (India) Private Limited v.Paymate Pty Limited; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks, The Trade Marks Registry, Chennai
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of an Original Petition filed by Paymate (India) Private Limited seeking to strike off a specific trademark registration. The court found that Trademark No. 1960699 was no longer in force because its last renewal date had expired on May 5, 2020, and the long stop period for restoration had passed. Consequently, the Court directed the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the certificate and remove the entry from the Register.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Genova Biotechniques Pvt. Ltd.
Mankind Pharma Limited successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to remove a specific trademark, 'PSO KIND,' from the register. The court observed that while the mark was initially registered, its renewal had lapsed after November 8, 2020. Consequently, the time limit for both renewal and restoration had expired. The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the registration certificate and remove the entry within four weeks.
Foodvista India Pvt. Ltd. v.The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court intervened in trademark applications filed by Foodvista India Pvt. Ltd., which were previously refused by the Trademark Registry on grounds of descriptiveness. The court found that the refusal orders were unreasoned and failed to consider the appellant's evidence of use and acquired distinctiveness, particularly under the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the Registrar for reconsideration, mandating a reasoned decision based on all submitted evidence.
Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. v.M.Safiullah, Trading as M.N.A.Mohammad Sulthan & Sons, and also as Tajmahal Tobacco Co., Partnership Firms; Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court disposed of a rectification proceeding initiated by Murari Lal Harish Chandra Jaiswal Pvt. Ltd. against the trademark 'HANS CHAAP SCENTED KHANI, TAJMAHAL.' The court noted that the first respondent (M.Safiullah) had categorically stated their willingness to surrender the trademark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the entry relating to Trademark No. 865412 from the register within four weeks.
M/s.Amit Agarwal Trading as M/s.Seetu Electicals v.M/s.Hitesh Kumar Rastogi (Trading as M/s.Avon Electrical Industries)
The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/s. Hitesh Kumar Rastogi against M/s. Amit Agarwal, which sought to remove the 'ORBIT THE CABLE PEOPLE' trademark registration. The court held that since the pending civil suits between the parties have not yet framed an issue concerning the invalidity of the registered mark, the rectification petition was not maintainable. This ruling underscores the strict procedural requirement under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, mandating that validity issues must be addressed in the rectification proceeding before infringement actions can proceed.
Marico Limited v.Mathewsons Exports And Imports Pvt.Ltd
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Marico Limited, directing the removal of the trademark 'KASTHOORI MANJAL' (Registration No. 1451234) from the register. The core issue was that the mark had not been renewed since April 26, 2016, and the statutory long stop date for renewal or restoration had expired. This decision underscores the critical importance of maintaining trademark registrations through timely renewals.
Lakha Ram Sharma (Kundan Cable India) v.Balar Marketing (P) Limited and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court addressed a petition seeking the cancellation of the 'KUNDAN CAB' trademark (No. 389177) due to pending opposition proceedings. Given that the petitioner had successfully appealed an earlier dismissal and the matter was remanded for re-consideration by the Registrar, the court ruled that the registration certificate was liable to be cancelled. The High Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the entry within four weeks, while also setting a six-month deadline for the Registrar to pronounce the final decision.
Wynk Limited v.Ec Media (International) Pvt. Ltd.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court disposed of a petition filed by Wynk Limited seeking the cancellation of an infringing mark registered under No.2020253. The court noted that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed after September 8, 2020. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the defunct trademark from the register within two weeks, effectively resolving the dispute in favor of Wynk Limited.
Mankind Pharma Limited v.Neospark Drugs And Chemicals Private Limited; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Mankind Pharma Limited, directing the removal of the trademark MAXCAL GEL (No. 2102511) from the Trade Marks Register. The court found that the registration had lapsed and was not renewed within the statutory time limits. This decision underscores the strict adherence required to maintain trademark rights through timely renewal procedures.
ITC Limited v.Britannia Industries Ltd.
ITC Limited filed a suit against Britannia Industries Ltd. alleging imitation of its trade dress for biscuits. The defendant sought to reject the plaint on grounds including lack of urgency, failure to comply with pre-mediation requirements, and jurisdictional challenges. The Madras High Court dismissed the application to reject the plaint, finding that the plaintiff had established jurisdiction and that the case warranted consideration despite procedural objections.
ITC Limited v.VST Industries Limited
The Madras High Court allowed ITC Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court directed the removal of Trademark No. 509304 from Class 34 on the Register of Trademarks. This decision was made after VST Industries Limited filed a memo indicating no objection to the petitioner's request, effectively clearing the path for the cancellation.
ITC Limited v.VST Industries Limited
The Madras High Court allowed ITC Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court directed the removal of Trademark No. 509304 from Class 34 on the Register of Trademarks. This decision was made after VST Industries Limited filed a memo indicating no objection to the petitioner's request, effectively clearing the path for the cancellation.
ITC Limited v.VST Industries Limited
The Madras High Court allowed ITC Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trademark registration. The court directed the removal of Trademark No. 509304 from Class 34 on the Register of Trademarks. This decision was made after VST Industries Limited filed a memo indicating no objection to the petitioner's request, effectively clearing the path for the cancellation.
Chivas Holdings (Ip) Limited v.Mcdowell And Company Limited
The Madras High Court allowed Chivas Holdings' petition seeking the removal and rectification of a conflicting trademark registration, 'Tribute,' in Class 33. The court noted that Respondent No. 2 (United Spirits Limited) had filed an application for cancellation of this specific mark. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register by removing Trademark Registration No. 636945 from the records.
Monsanto Technology Llc v.Union Of India
Monsanto Technology LLC challenged the rejection of its patent application (No. 6560/CHENP/2008) by the Patent Office. The court found that the impugned order breached principles of natural justice because it referenced sections and paragraphs (like Section 10(4)(a), (b), (c) and paragraph 53) that were neither in the First Examination Report nor in the subsequent hearing notice.
Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. v.Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by Nivaran Herbal Pvt. Ltd. seeking the removal of the trademark 'KHANSI NIVAARAN' (Registration No. 1740206). The court found that the cancellation was mandated by a prior compromise order reached between the parties in C.S.No.644/2011. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to take all necessary steps to expunge the mark from the register.
Mr.C.S.Padam Chand v.K.Shibu Proprietor Thameem Films and M/s H.R.Pictures
The appeal concerned the appellant's attempt to restrain the release of the movie 'Thugs' due to alleged non-fulfillment of obligations under prior copyright agreements with K.Shibu. The court found that although H.R.Pictures was not a party to the original agreement, an interim injunction could be maintained against its further exploitation (OTT rights) provided K.Shibu furnished adequate security.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.