M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v. S.Giriedharan and others (Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)

OP(TM) No. 50 of 2025

The Madras High Court dismissed OP(TM) No. 50 of 2025 after the parties entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. The petitioner, M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd., had sought the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam' registered by the respondents in Class 30. Given the mutual agreement reached between the parties, the court allowed the petition to be withdrawn.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
OP(TM) No. 50 of 2025
Decision Date
22 October 2025

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.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. vs S.Giriedharan and others (Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 793/2022

Laboratoires ExpansciencevsSeagull Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Laboratoires Expanscience seeking the rectification of the trademark register. The plaintiff argued that the defendant's registration of the word mark 'MUSTELA' in Class 5 (pharmaceutical preparations) infringed upon its own prior, registered rights in Class 3 (non-medicated skin care). Crucially, the respondent agreed to relinquish the mark and cooperate with its deletion. Consequently, the Court directed the removal of the impugned registration, rectifying the register accordingly.

trademark13-iaL-30040-24

Bisleri International Private LimitedvsPriti Rajawat, Sole Proprietor Of M/S ...

Bisleri International Private Limited filed an Interim Application seeking further ad-interim relief against Priti Rajawat for alleged infringement of its trademarks (BRISLERI), copyright in its label/packaging, and design/shape. The court noted that previous interim orders were granted but had not been served on the Defendants. Consequently, the court ordered service of the relevant order before hearing and disposing of the current application.

trademark2026:CHC-OS:117-DB

Unique Enterprenuers And Finance LimitedvsReally Agritech Private Limited

The appeal challenged a judgment that revoked an interim injunction and dismissed the plaintiff's urgent relief application. The core dispute involved alleged infringement and passing off between the appellant (using 'RALLI') and the respondent (using 'Really'). The court found that the appellant was aware of the defendant's use of the mark since 2018, based on participation in a fair and subsequent WhatsApp exchanges.

trademarkIPDCR/14/2022

M/S. Anup Kumar BiswasvsM/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr.

M/S. Anup Kumar Biswas filed an application seeking the rectification of a Copyright Registration held by M/S. S. H. Biri Factory And Anr., alleging that the registered label was deceptively similar to their own trade name and infringed upon their rights. The petitioner claimed the registration was obtained surreptitiously without notice. Given the respondent's willingness to have the matter heard afresh after proper notice, the Court cancelled the impugned registration and remanded the case back to the Copyright Registrar for a fresh decision.

trademarkO.S.No.5165/2015

M S Cothas Coffee Co.vsMs Cotha Associates

The plaintiff, M S Cothas Coffee Co., filed a suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants for infringing and passing off its registered trademarks 'COTHAS COFFEE' and 'COTHAS'. The dispute arose after former partners (Defendants No. 2 and 3) retired from the firm but subsequently established a new partnership firm, M/s. Cotha Associates, using the deceptively similar trademark 'COTHA' for coffee products.

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