M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons v. M/s.S.Jaffer Mohideen Alias Noushad

(T) CMA (TM)/54/2023

The Madras High Court dismissed an appeal filed by M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons against the rejection of their opposition to a trademark application (No.676174). The court found that despite the appellant's claims of prior use of 'S', the respondent's mark, which prominently features 'FILTER BEEDI,' was not likely to cause confusion among consumers. However, the judgment imposed strict conditions on the respondent, requiring them to use their label in combination with two other specific labels and formally undertake not to use the 'SS' logo independently.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
(T) CMA (TM)/54/2023
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 M/s.A.Habeebur Rahman Sons vs M/s.S.Jaffer Mohideen Alias Noushad is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 512/2020 I.A.10732/2020

Sopariwala Exports & Anr.vsMr.Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of Sopariwala Exports & Anr. against Mr. Haji Iqbal Ahmed Ansari Trading As M/s Afzal Bidi Co. The plaintiffs, who hold extensive trademark rights for 'AFZAL' related to tobacco products, successfully demonstrated a prima facie case of infringement by the defendants selling similar goods under infringing marks like 'AFZAL BIDI No. 90.' This interim order protects the plaintiffs from irreparable loss while the main suit proceeds.

trademark2025:BHC-OS:24247

Neon Laboratories LimitedvsVishal Subhash Versus Parekar Syndicate Pharma

The Bombay High Court confirmed the existing ad-interim injunction regarding trademark 'NEON' infringement, finding that the rival mark was identical. Furthermore, the court granted interim relief concerning passing off, noting a strong prima facie case that the products were counterfeit and caused misrepresentation. The court also allowed the petitioner's leave petition to combine the causes of action for trademark infringement and passing off.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 212/2024

Manash Lifestyle Private LimitedvsViraj Harjai & Anr.

The Delhi High Court granted rectification to Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a major online beauty retailer operating under the mark 'PURPLLE'. The court cancelled two registrations held by the respondent for similar marks ('PURPLLE TREE/'), finding that the petitioner was the prior and continuous user. This decision underscores the importance of establishing genuine, long-standing market presence over mere application dates when challenging trademark validity.

trademarkC.O.(COMM.IPD-CR) 10/2023 & CRL.M.A.13366/2024, I.A. 20163/2023, I.A. 2428/2024

Chattisgarh Distilleries LimitedvsGreat Galleon Ventures Ltd & Anr.

The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order in the dispute between Chattisgarh Distilleries Limited and Great Galleon Ventures Ltd. The court directed the impleadment of the Registrar of Trademarks and ordered various parties to file amended memos, additional affidavits, and formal responses regarding original registration documents presented by the petitioner. This indicates the case is progressing through a detailed evidentiary phase.

trademark(T)CMA(TM)/139/2023

Amgen IncvsThe Registrar of Trademarks

Amgen Inc filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal challenging the Registrar of Trademarks' refusal to register the mark 'SILIQ' in Class 5. The appeal sought to set aside the previous order and allow the trademark registration to proceed. However, before the court could rule on the merits of the case, Amgen Inc submitted a memo requesting the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

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