Bench:Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
402 IP cases indexed. Covers trademark, patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
402 cases indexed | Page 9 of 14
Laticrete International, Inc. v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed Laticrete International's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its trademark application. The court found the original refusal order was unreasoned, essentially a 'copy and paste job,' and failed to consider the appellant's arguments regarding the cited marks. Crucially, the court noted that two of the five cited conflicting marks had been abandoned, while the remaining three were still in an 'opposed' status, making the application eligible for advertisement.
Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad v.The Registrar of Trademark
The Madras High Court set aside the Trademark Registrar's refusal to register the mark 'GRAMA BAZAAR' (Application No. 3589530). The appellant successfully argued that because the mark is a device mark applied to services (operating as a marketplace), it should not be subject to the same conflicts as existing word marks registered for goods in different classes. Consequently, the court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement, while imposing a limitation preventing the appellant from claiming exclusive rights over the words 'GRAMA' or 'BAZAAR'.
M/S.Chu Chu Tv Studios Llp v.The Registrar Of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by M/S. Chu Chu Tv Studios LLP against the Registrar of Trademarks' rejection of its device mark registration (CHU CHU TV). The court overturned the refusal, finding that the grounds cited by the Registrar—including lack of turnover disclosure and failure to provide a Section 65B certificate for online content—were untenable. Crucially, the High Court held that when evidence is sourced from third-party online articles, the applicant cannot be required to produce a Section 65B certificate, thereby paving the way for the mark's acceptance.
M/s.White House (Partnership Firm) v.White House Apparels Private Limited & The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed multiple petitions filed by M/s. White House seeking the removal of several registered trademarks belonging to its competitor, White House Apparels Private Limited. The petitioner argued they were a prior user of the 'WHITE HOUSE' mark since 1963, relying heavily on historical turnover and export documents. However, the Court found that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous use or application of the mark to goods until much later (around 2015), concluding that the respondent's prior registration rights were valid.
Indoco Remedies Limited v.M/S.Micro Labs Ltd.
The Madras High Court disposed of a dispute between Indoco Remedies Limited and M/S.Micro Labs Ltd regarding the trade mark 'CITALIFT'. The parties reached an agreement, leading the court to mandate the cancellation of the disputed registration (No. 1005556). Micro Labs agreed to change its mark to 'MICROLIFT' while being granted a six-month grace period to liquidate existing inventory bearing the old mark.
Tekelec, Inc. v.The Controller of Patents
Tekelec, Inc. filed a miscellaneous petition seeking reinstatement of claim No. 32 in Patent Application No. 7133/CHENP/2009. The court noted that the petitioner's counsel was not pressing the petition and closed the matter at the SR stage.
A.D.Padmasingh Isaac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v.V.Senthil Kumar & The Registrar of Trademarks
This Madras High Court judgment addressed a complex dispute involving trade mark infringement and rectification petitions between Aachi Spices and Foods and V.Senthil Kumar. The parties ultimately reached a comprehensive settlement, formalized through a Memorandum of Compromise dated August 31, 2023. Consequently, the court decreed the civil suit by granting a permanent injunction against the defendant's use of similar marks, while simultaneously directing the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel and rectify the disputed registrations held by the respondent.
M/s.Prestige Buildwell Private Limited v.M/s.Prestige Estates Project Ltd.
The Madras High Court dismissed a series of rectification petitions filed by M/s. Prestige Buildwell Private Limited against M/s. Prestige Estates Project Ltd. The petitions sought to rectify, revoke, or cancel several trademark registrations based on alleged non-use. However, the court noted that the petitioner had previously admitted in civil proceedings that the first respondent was the registered proprietor of the 'Prestige' mark and undertook only to use a specific trading style ('Prestige Buildwell Private Limited'). Based on this prior agreement, the court closed the rectification petitions.
Board of Regents, The University of Texas System v.The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by The University of Texas System regarding the trademark 'cancer and Slash Design'. The court found that the Registrar's previous refusal was unreasoned, failing to consider evidence of use and international registrations. Consequently, the application was accepted for advertisement, provided the university does not claim exclusive rights over the word 'Cancer'.
M/S.Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. v.Mr.V.M.Joseph and The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court disposed of rectification petitions filed by M/S. Pioneer Bakeries Pvt. Ltd. against Mr. V.M. Joseph regarding the trademark 'MILKA'. The court relied on a binding Dispute Settlement Agreement (MOU) dated 18.02.2016, wherein Mr. Joseph acknowledged that PBPL was the true proprietor of 'MILKA' and agreed to end all disputes. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to cancel the disputed registrations.
M/s. TIL Healthcare Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed the appeal filed by TIL Healthcare Private Limited, setting aside the Trade Mark Office's refusal to register the mark 'URELOG'. The court found that despite objections based on similarity to existing marks, the appellant successfully demonstrated the distinctiveness of the word mark. By considering the specific derivation of the elements ('URE' from urea/urine and 'LOG' from ketoanalogue) and noting that the mark was not a self-evident fusion, the High Court directed the Registrar to accept the application for advertisement.
Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited v.Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Intellectual Property Office
The Madras High Court overturned the Senior Examiner's objections against Jawan Guarding Services Private Limited's trade mark applications. The court found that the device mark was inherently distinctive and disregarded the examiner's narrow focus on the words alone. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, directing the acceptance of the mark for advertisement, provided the appellant does not claim exclusive rights over its constituent words when used individually.
Jupiter Drugs Partnership Concern v.Mrs.M.Sarojini Proprietrix; The Deputy Registrar of Trademarks
Jupiter Drugs filed an Original Petition seeking to expunge or limit the registered trademark 'ZIPROVIT' (No. 1306475) held by Mrs. M. Sarojini Proprietrix, citing issues related to geographical scope and use. However, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution because the petitioner could not be served notice due to an outdated address. This procedural dismissal effectively halted Jupiter Drugs' attempt to challenge the trademark registration.
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. v.Controller Of Patents
Wisig Networks Pvt Ltd. challenged the Controller of Patents regarding systemic issues in the e-filing system, which prevented the submission of a divisional patent application following a remand by the IPAB. The petitioner's original parent application had been refused but was subsequently remanded for re-consideration. Since the online portal reflected the 'refused' status, the divisional application could not be filed digitally. The Madras High Court acknowledged this systemic glitch and issued several directions to facilitate the filing process.
Sundaram Industries Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed Sundaram Industries Limited's appeal against the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to refuse registration for the word mark TRISTAR. The court found that despite arguments regarding differences in goods, the appellant's proposed mark was near identical to an earlier registered mark (TM No. 308929). Given that both marks were applied to similar goods—solid industrial tyres and tyres/tubes for motor land vehicles—the court concluded there would be a likelihood of confusion or association among the public, thereby upholding the refusal under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
Helion Biotech ApS v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India
Helion Biotech ApS appealed a rejection order by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, which denied grant of a patent for antibodies to MASP-2. The appeal was filed seeking consideration of further amended claims. The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back for examination of the amended claims.
M.S.Earthevents (I) Private Limited v.Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court set aside an administrative order that had removed a registered trademark (No. 1249884) from the register. The appellant successfully argued that the Registrar of Trade Marks failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements, specifically by not issuing the required notice (Form O-3) to the proprietor before taking action. Consequently, the court allowed the appellant to take necessary steps for the renewal of their trademark.
N.C.Nanu v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court allowed a writ petition filed by N.C.Nanu, whose trademark application for 'PAYYOLI MIXTURE' was deemed abandoned by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court held that the petitioner had complied with Section 21(2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, as the initial counter statement was filed within the stipulated two-month period from receiving the notice of opposition. The High Court quashed the abandonment order and directed the Registry to consider the application on its merits.
Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha (Sharp Corporation) v.Sharp Tools; The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha against a trademark registration order. The core issue was whether to set aside the Deputy Registrar's decision that rejected Sharp's opposition to the mark 'SHARP.' However, the court found the appeal moot because the challenged trademark (No. 1185252) had lapsed and not been renewed since March 2013. Consequently, the legal challenge became infructuous.
Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v.Roopa Lakshmi Bhat; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court allowed Spalon India Pvt. Ltd.'s application for rectification against Trademark No. 2280919. The court noted that the last registration of the mark had expired on February 10, 2022, making its continued presence in the Register invalid. Consequently, the Registrar of Trademarks was directed to remove the entry from Classes 3, 41, and 44 within four weeks.
Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust v.Samina Mahmood
The Madras High Court dismissed four original petitions filed by Vidyothsahi Educational and Charitable Trust seeking the revocation of several 'Headstart' trademark applications. The dismissal was based on a prior decree from Bengaluru, which included a memorandum of compromise. Under this agreement, the petitioner had undertaken not to infringe upon or pass off educational services using the plaintiffs' registered trademarks. Given this binding commitment, the court found that the petitioner could no longer prosecute the revocation petitions.
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.
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.
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'.
Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. v.M/s.Team-Venture; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Shear Genius Academy & Services Pvt. Ltd. seeking to remove or rectify the trade mark 'SHEAR MAGIC UNISEX SALON AND SPA' from the Register of Trade Marks. The dismissal was based solely on the petitioner's failure to appear and prosecute the matter despite multiple notices being served. This ruling highlights the strict procedural requirements in trademark litigation.
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.
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
Dhanvantari Nano Ayushadi Private Limited filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks concerning the registration of the mark “NANO CUR”. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution because the appellant could not be served notice due to having vacated the specified office address.
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'.
Nokia Technologies OY v.Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Nokia Technologies OY appealed the Assistant Controller's refusal to grant a patent for its system and method for listening to audio content. The appellant argued that the refusal order failed to consider their amended claims and responses to objections raised under Section 3(k).
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.
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.