Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
431 IP cases indexed. Covers patent, trademark matters.
Cases Presided Over
431 cases indexed | Page 10 of 15
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
M/s.United Spirits Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. United Spirits Limited's petition seeking rectification of a trade mark registration. The court noted that the petitioner had assigned several marks to Grover Zampa Vineyards Limited, rendering them no longer an aggrieved party regarding the impugned mark. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, but the door remains open for the assignee to initiate proper rectification proceedings.
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.
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).
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of a patent application. The refusal was based on objections regarding lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions and remanded the matter for re-evaluation by a different officer.
Prakash Ferrous Industries Private Limited v.The Registrar of Trade Marks
The appellant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register the word mark 'TIRUMALA' (Application No. 2080181). The High Court set aside the impugned order primarily because it was cryptic and lacked sufficient reasons for its decision. However, since evidence of use was not placed before the authority, the matter was remanded back to the Registrar for a reasoned decision after the appellant provides proof of use.
Bigtec Private Limited v.The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of patent for Indian Patent Application No. 314/CHE/2009, concluding that the claims lacked inventive step. The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of appellant's contentions regarding prior art and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
BIGTEC PRIVATE LIMITED v.The ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS & DESIGNS
Bigtec Private Limited appealed against the Assistant Controller's order declining the grant of a patent for application No. 421/CHE/2009, citing lack of inventive step and non-patentability under Section 3(e). The court set aside the impugned order due to non-consideration of the appellant's contentions regarding prior art and Section 3(e), and remanded the matter for re-consideration by a different officer.
Perennial Health Care India Private Limited v.Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain; The Registrar of Trademarks
The Madras High Court case involving Perennial Health Care India Private Limited and Manju Bai & Ramesh Kumar M.Jain was concluded when the petitioner chose to withdraw their original petitions. The petitions, which sought various remedies under the Trademarks Act, 1999, including removal of specific trademark entries in Class 5, were formally dismissed as withdrawn by the court on August 23, 2023.
M/s.Navketan Enterprises v.Sandeep A. Jain and The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by M/s. Navketan Enterprises seeking the removal of an impugned trade mark from the register. The court noted that the petitioner had been instructed to withdraw the petition, citing a deed of assignment dated July 3, 2019, which transferred ownership of the mark to them. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
Dxn Holdings Bhd v.Daehsan Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd.; The Registrar of Trade Marks
The Madras High Court dismissed two Original Petitions filed by Dxn Holdings Bhd seeking the removal of specific trademarks from the register. The court noted that the last registration date of the marks was in 2021, and crucially, the first respondent (Daehsan Trading) was found to be under liquidation. Given these developments, the petitions were deemed infructuous, though the petitioner was directed to take necessary steps for mark removal.
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.
Adhya Kumar v.Mulligan Concept Teachers Association
The petitioner, Adhya Kumar, filed a Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking to set aside an earlier order and restore opposition proceedings related to Trademark Application No. 3010257 in Classes 16 and 41. The appeal was ultimately closed after the court noted the prior decision by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. v.Narendra Kumar Gupta
The Madras High Court dismissed a petition filed by Produits Petroliers Organisation S.A.S. seeking the cancellation of the trademark 'KENNOL.' The court noted that the mark had been deemed abandoned because the first respondent failed to file a counter statement in response to the petitioner's opposition notice. Consequently, the original legal challenge became moot.
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.
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.