Short Summary
The Madras High Court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's decision to refuse registration of 'REJUSTAR' in Class 5. The Registrar had cited phonetic similarity to other marks, but the court held that it was premature to determine deceptive similarity based solely on scrutiny under Section 11. Given that the appellant's mark is an invented word and the cited marks were used for different goods or outside India, the matter was remanded back to the Registry for further processing.
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 trademark matters before Madras High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in M/s.Mesmer Pharmaceuticals vs The Registrar of Trade Marks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Calvin Klein Inc.vsInternational Apparel Syndicate
The Calcutta High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Calvin Klein Inc. against International Apparel Syndicate, finding a prima facie case of passing off. The court determined that the respondents were deliberately attempting to deceive consumers by using marks and advertisements virtually identical to those of the petitioner. Despite the petitioner not having local registration or business presence in India, the court held that its international reputation was sufficient grounds for protection, making the interim order absolute.
M/S Jagran Prakashan LtdvsJagran Entertainment Media Pvt Ltd & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications seeking to bring new parties into the ongoing trademark dispute concerning 'Dainik Jagran'. The court dismissed two separate applications for impleadment, finding that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Crucially, the court clarified that this dismissal does not prejudice the rights of these applicants in the trademark, which will be determined in related proceedings. Furthermore, Defendant No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
Madapes LimitedvsMadapes Promo Private Limited & Ors.
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Madapes Limited against the defendants. The court recognized that the plaintiff's marks ('MADAPES', 'MAD APES') were being used deceptively by the respondents, leading to claims of passing off and copyright infringement over logos and content. Furthermore, the court directed specific actions, including blocking fraudulent Telegram accounts and taking down an incorrectly registered website, to protect the plaintiff's brand integrity.
The Capital Group Companies, IncvsAshok Kumar & Ors
The Delhi High Court addressed a request by an intermediary (Defendant No. 11) seeking to modify its obligations under trademark infringement proceedings involving 'CAPITAL ONE.' The Court rejected the plea for extended compliance time, emphasizing that due to the nature of the case—which involves fraudulent ponzi/pyramid schemes proliferating on social media like Telegram—swift action is imperative. Consequently, the court reinforced the existing order, mandating Defendant No. 11 to take down infringing accounts within 72 working hours upon receiving a complaint from the Plaintiff.
Tata Sky Limited (later Tata Play Limited)vsLinkedin Corporation And Ors.
The Delhi High Court addressed an ongoing trademark infringement suit filed by Tata Sky against LinkedIn concerning unauthorized use of the 'TATA SKY' brand on user profiles. Recognizing the recurring nature of fake and infringing profiles, the court issued specific directions to LinkedIn. These directions mandate that LinkedIn publicly disclose its Grievance Officer details, relevant policies, and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) related to handling such grievances under the IT Rules, aiming to establish an effective framework for redressal without requiring constant litigation.
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.