A.D.Padmasingh Issac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) v. Hariharan (Trading as Sruthi's Masala) & The Registrar of Trademarks

(T)OP(TM)/186/2023

The Madras High Court dismissed the petition filed by A.D. Padmasingh Issac seeking the removal or rectification of Trademark No. 1759431 from the Register of Trademarks. The court noted that, subsequent to filing the suit, the trademark in question had already been removed from the register. Since the relief sought was no longer necessary due to this prior action, the petition was declared infructuous.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T)OP(TM)/186/2023
Judge(s)
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in A.D.Padmasingh Issac (Trading as Aachi Spices and Foods) vs Hariharan (Trading as Sruthi's Masala) & The Registrar of Trademarks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 47/2024

Gemini Edibles And Fats India LimitedvsDream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Gemini Edibles And Fats India Limited against Dream Freedom Herbal Pvt. Ltd., directing the removal of the respondent's trademark (No. 3213226). The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior and well-reputed 'FREEDOM' marks, noting that the addition of a prefix did not differentiate it sufficiently. Given the identical nature of the goods and target consumers, the registration was deemed obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/87/2023

Kurian John MelamparambilvsSulbha G. Shenoi; The Trademark Registry

The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Kurian John Melamparambil seeking rectification of Trademark No. 1301085. The dismissal was based on a submission from the first respondent, stating that the trademark had not been renewed since August 6, 2014. Consequently, the petition to remove or rectify the entry became infructuous.

trademarkIA No. 341/2000 (and IA 342/2000)

Rainforest Cafe, Inc.vsRainforest Cafe And Ors.

The plaintiff, Rainforest Cafe, Inc., sought an interim injunction against defendants operating a restaurant under the name 'RAINFOREST CAFE', alleging that the defendant was copying its globally recognized trade mark and style. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case based on its worldwide reputation and noted that passing off applies to services as well as goods, thus confirming the interim order.

trademark(T)OP(TM)/518/2023 (ORA/SR.3/2021/TM/CHN)

Puma SevsK.Srinivasan Trading as K.Srinivasan Mills & The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court allowed Puma Se's petition for rectification, directing the removal of a conflicting trade mark registration (No. 2892343) held by K.Srinivasan Mills. The court found that the leaping cat depicted in the respondent's label bore a strong resemblance to Puma's registered 'leaping puma' logo. This ruling reinforces the principle that established trademark proprietors are entitled to protect their distinctive logos against confusingly similar marks, even if those marks operate in related classes.

trademarkCOMM.IPD 591/2022

Ganesh Grains Ltd.vsDharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Ganesh Grains Ltd., leading to the removal of the 'GANESH HARA MATAR' trademark registered by Dharmendra Kumar Gupta & Anr. The court found that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s long-standing and well-established 'GANESH' brand, which has been in use since 1936. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to provide evidence of actual user of the mark, leading the Court to cancel the registration under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM 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 trademark matter?

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

Get a Strategy Call