Stove Kraft Limited v. The Registry of Trade Marks

C.M.A.(TM) No.26 of 2025

The Madras High Court allowed Stove Kraft Limited's appeal against the Trade Mark Registry's refusal to register the mark 'Pigeon'. The court found that the appellant had presented prima facie evidence of prior consent terms with Pigeon Corporation, which warranted further consideration rather than outright rejection. Consequently, the registry was directed to accept and advertise the trademark application, allowing any objections from third parties to be addressed later on their merits.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
C.M.A.(TM) No.26 of 2025
Judge(s)
N. Anand Venkatesh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Stove Kraft Limited vs The Registry of Trade Marks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentFAO(OS) (COMM) 124/2021

Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr.vsVictoria Foods Private Limited

The Delhi High Court addressed the trademark dispute between Rajdhani Masala Co & Anr. and Victoria Foods Private Limited, which centers on the use of the 'RAJDHANI' mark. While the appellants claimed long-standing usage since 1965, the court noted a lack of concrete evidence, such as sales invoices, to establish prima facie commercial use of the trademark on their goods. The Court directed both parties to file the complete record before proceeding further in the litigation.

patentIPDATM/261/2023

Fena Private LimitedvsBajranglal Rathi Trading As M/S. Maheshwari Soap Industries and Ors

The Calcutta High Court addressed a trademark dispute brought by Fena Private Limited against Bajranglal Rathi Trading. The court noted that prima facie, the impugned registration appears to infringe upon the appellant's rights. Furthermore, the court observed evidence suggesting a clear case of non-use regarding the respondent's mark, which was not disputed at the hearing. Consequently, the matter has been adjourned for further arguments and submissions.

patentCS(COMM) 790/2024

Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd.vsGeneral Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed several interlocutory applications filed by the defendants/counter claimants. The court condoned a 57-day delay in filing the written statement and directed the numbering of the counter claim seeking revocation of the plaintiff's patent (IN 394568). Further directions were issued regarding discovery and placing sales figures on record.

patentWP(IPD) No.20 of 2024

Mr.A.SalaudeenvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

Mr. A. Salaudeen approached the Madras High Court seeking intervention against the prolonged delay by the Registrar of Trade Marks in processing his post-registration changes for three trademarks ('Globe', 'Cock', and 'Anil'). The petitioner argued that this seven-year pendency was causing undue hardship and eroding his goodwill due to unauthorized third-party use. Recognizing the administrative lapse, the Court issued a directive compelling the Registrar to dispose of the pending application within eight weeks.

patentCS(COMM) 638/2025

New Balance Athletics Inc.vsSunil Gupta

New Balance Athletics Inc. successfully secured several critical preliminary orders in its suit against Sunil Gupta regarding trademark infringement. The Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff exemption from pre-litigation mediation and advance service, allowing immediate legal action. Crucially, the court passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using deceptively similar marks like 'NEW BLANCO' and 'BALANCE'. Furthermore, the court authorized a Local Commissioner to conduct search and seizure of evidence and counterfeit products at the defendant's premises.

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