Executive Summary
The appellant challenged the Assistant Registrar's decision regarding an amendment to a trade mark application ('SHANKER') filed by the dissolved firm Meerut Engineering Works. The appellant sought judicial determination of rights before the registration process could proceed, but his applications were rejected as incompetent under Section 44. This appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Madan Mohan Lal Garg vs Brijmohanlal Garg is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Solariz Healthcare Private LimitedvsThe Deputy Registrar (Head Of Office)
Solariz Healthcare Private Limited challenged an order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks (Mumbai Branch) concerning its Trade Mark Application No. 4826903. The petitioner argued that since the 'appropriate office' was Chennai, the Mumbai-attached examiner lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order.
Prakash Ferrous Industries Private LimitedvsThe 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.
Ravi ChauhanvsPankaj Chauhan
The plaintiff, a registered patent and trademark agent, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 11,000/- against the defendant. The dispute arose because the defendant failed to pay the agreed fees for filing a counter-statement in opposition to the trademark 'FULEZ'. Since the defendant remained absent despite service and was proceeded ex-parte, the plaintiff successfully proved his case.
M/s Rockmed Pharma Pvt. Ltd.vsM/s Nukind Healthcare & Anr.
The suit was filed under Section 27 of the Trade Mark Act against M/s Nukind Healthcare and others, alleging that they were passing off pharmaceutical products under the identical trademark 'KETOGOLD'. The plaintiff established extensive use, goodwill, and reputation of the mark. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
The Hind Samachar LimitedvsPunjab Kesari Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
The Delhi High Court disposed of a rectification petition concerning the trade mark 'PUNJAB KESARI' after the involved family members reached an oral and written settlement. The court directed the amendment of the trademark registration, effectively carving out specific geographical territories for both the petitioner (VKC group) and the respondent (AKC group). This resolution allowed the parties to coexist using the same mark within defined regional boundaries.
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.
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.