World Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network v. Daystar Television Network India Pvt. Ltd.; Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai

69417253

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition seeking the removal and rectification of the trademark 'DAYSTAR TELEVISION NETWORK' from the register. The petitioners argued that the first respondent company had been struck off the Register of Companies and that the impugned trademark ceased to be valid after June 25, 2017. Given these developments, the court found the petition to be infructuous.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
69417253
Judge(s)
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Detailed Summary

of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in World Of God Fellowship Inc./d/b/a/Daystar Television Network vs Daystar Television Network India Pvt. Ltd.; Registrar of Trademarks, Trademarks Registry, Chennai is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patent1821802

S.Ram KumarvsUnion Of India

S.Ram Kumar filed multiple Writ Petitions before the Madras High Court challenging various orders passed by Customs authorities concerning the import of his patented technology (Plurality of SIM/Blue Tooth). The petitioner claimed infringement and sought to quash the customs decisions. However, the court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioner failed to avail the effective alternate remedy provided under the Customs Act, 1962.

patent155598264

Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd.vsMr.Tallam Uma Shankar Gupta

The Madras High Court allowed a petition seeking rectification of the Trade Marks Register, directing the removal of the mark 'GYPLOCK' (No. 3536418). The petitioner, Saint Gobain Construction Products UK Ltd., successfully argued that its established trademark 'GYPROC' was similar to the impugned mark and used on identical goods—building materials. Despite arguments regarding common trade terms ('GYP'), the court found the overall similarity between 'GYPROC' and 'GYPLOCK' likely to cause confusion, thereby protecting the purity of the register.

patent7219483

Mittal Electronic IndustriesvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

Mittal Electronic Industries filed a petition challenging the current registration status of the trademark 'MILTON' (No. 419520). The petitioner contends that despite their historical association with the mark, the proprietorship is now incorrectly listed under an unrelated entity, 'Indian Agencies.' The Delhi High Court issued notice to the Registrar of Trade Marks, prompting a formal inquiry into the ownership and registration details of the trademark.

patent143168062

Moti Insecticides Private LimitedvsGsp Crop Science Limited & Anr.

Moti Insecticides Private Limited filed a petition seeking the revocation of Indian Patent IN 394568. The court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file their reply within four weeks.

patent176783403

Koninklijke Philips N.V.vsM/S Electrical Master

Philips filed a suit against Electrical Master for infringing its registered trademarks (PHILIPS), copyrights, and design rights concerning its Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000. The court found in favor of Philips, granting permanent injunctions, damages, and costs.

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