M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. v. S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods)

OP(TM) No. 54 of 2025

M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition seeking the cancellation and rectification of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359360 in Class 30. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, allowing the dispute to be resolved amicably between the involved parties.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Madras High Court
Case Number
OP(TM) No. 54 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.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar (Partners of M/s.Shri Lakshmi Agro Foods) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2025

Abbott Products Operations AgvsMs. Aprajita Sushma Proprietor Of Alrom Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed multiple applications in the trademark dispute involving Abbott Products Operations Ag and Alrom Pharmaceuticals. The court allowed the petitioner's application seeking leave to file additional documents, while simultaneously initiating proceedings for a rectification petition concerning the 'KREOFLAT' trademark. This order sets out timelines for both parties to file replies and written synopses, moving the core dispute forward.

trademarkCOMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO. 23 of 2008 (Notice of Motion No. 22 of 2013)

Siyaram Silk Mills LimitedvsStanford Siyaram Fashion Private Limited

The Plaintiff, Siyaram Silk Mills Ltd., filed a suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from infringing its registered trade mark 'Siyaram' and passing off their products. The Defendants raised defenses including prior use since 1992 and acquiescence by the Plaintiff. The Court found that the Plaintiff had a strong prima facie case, concluding that the defendants' adoption was dishonest and granting interim relief.

trademark2023:MHC:4776 (T)OP(TM)/263 & 264/2023

Nalli Sambbasivam Trading as M/s.Nalli's Silks Sari CentrevsM/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty & Ors.

The Madras High Court dismissed two rectification petitions filed by Nalli Sambbasivam against M/s.Nalli Chinnasami Chetty regarding the trade mark 'Nalli'. The core issue was whether a rectification petition could proceed when an earlier infringement suit concerning the same marks was pending before the Bombay High Court. The court held that under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, a party must first convince the civil court to frame a triable issue on the validity of the registration before seeking rectification.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2023

Dr. Reddys Laboratories LimitedvsFast Cure Pharma And Anr.

The Delhi High Court allowed a petition seeking the rectification of a trademark registration, declaring the mark 'RAZOFAST' illegal. The court found that 'RAZOFAST' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's prior registered mark 'RAZO', which is used for the pharmaceutical compound Rabeprazole. Consequently, the registration of 'RAZOFAST' was cancelled and removed from the register.

trademarkGA No.1898 of 2017, CS No.129 of 2017

hindustan unilever limitedvsshree mehta chemicals indore pvt ltd

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUFL) sued Shree Mehta Chemicals (Indore) Pvt Ltd for infringement of its registered trademark 'SURF/SURF EXCEL' and copyright in the artwork on its detergent powder packaging, alleging that Shree Mehta’s ‘SANAN’ detergent packaging used a deceptively similar colour scheme, getup, and artwork. HUFL claimed significant sales and reputation associated with the SURF EXCEL brand.

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