M/S Money Polymers Private Limited v. Union Of India, Registrar Of Trade Mark Ministry Of Commerce And Industries

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9490/2019

M/S Money Polymers Private Limited filed a writ petition seeking judicial intervention against the Union of India regarding the delayed registration of its trademark, 'Mr. Money.' The petitioner argued that the application, filed in 2014, had exceeded the statutory period for decision under Section 23(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Rajasthan High Court acknowledged this delay and issued a directive compelling the respondent to expeditiously decide the trademark registration application within three months.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9490/2019
Judge(s)
Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/S Money Polymers Private Limited vs Union Of India, Registrar Of Trade Mark Ministry Of Commerce And Industries is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentO.A.No.835 to 837 of 2012 in C.S.No.649of 2012

Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited (and Dr. Issac Mathai)vsDefendant/Respondent (unnamed in excerpt)

The Madras High Court granted interim injunctions in favor of Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited against the respondent. The court found that the respondent's use of deceptively similar marks like 'SOWKHYA' and associated domain names constituted trademark infringement and passing off, despite arguments regarding prior usage or delay. This ruling underscores the importance of registered trademarks in protecting service-based businesses from unauthorized imitation.

patent15273 of 2023

Unilever Global Ip LimitedvsVikas Cosmetics

The parties to the Commercial IPR Suit arrived at a settlement on July 24, 2023. The Defendant agreed to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards costs and full and final settlement, leading to the suit being disposed of and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.

patentOa/30/2020/Tm/Chn & (T)SR.No.8/2020/TM/CH

Jawan Guarding Services Private LimitedvsSenior 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.

patentCS(COMM) 430/2024 with I.A. 32723/2024

Evergreen Sweet HousevsJV Evergreen Sweets And Treats & Ors.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Evergreen Sweet House against JV Evergreen Sweets And Treats. The court found a prima facie case of passing off, noting that the plaintiff has been operating under the 'Evergreen' mark since 1963, establishing significant goodwill and prior use. Given the defendant's recent entry into the market and the likelihood of customer confusion on food delivery platforms, the court restrained the defendants from using the infringing mark until the final suit adjudication.

patentFAO(OS) (COMM) 77/2025 & CM APPL. 25373/2025

Castrol LimitedvsVivek Pratap Singh

The Delhi High Court allowed Castrol Limited's appeal, recognizing that the respondent was engaged in blatant counterfeiting of its motor oil brand. The court emphasized the severe public safety risk associated with substandard counterfeit engine oils. Consequently, the court directed the appointment of a Local Commissioner to inventory and take custody of the infringing products, granting immediate relief to protect the appellant's market and consumers.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call