Prem N. Mayor And Ors. v. Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors.

AIR1969CAL80

This Calcutta High Court judgment addresses an appeal challenging the refusal of a trade mark registration. The appellant, holding the 'Lion Brand,' opposed the registration of 'Ma Durga Brand.' The court ultimately upheld the rejection, finding that despite both marks featuring a lion, the overall visual and conceptual differences—particularly the dominance of the goddess figure in the respondent's mark—prevented a likelihood of confusion or deception under Section 12(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Calcutta High Court
Case Number
AIR1969CAL80
Decision Date
24 April 1968

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Calcutta High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Prem N. Mayor And Ors. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkFAO.No.12 OF 2019 (in O.S.NO.27/2018)

K.M.Ahmed Ansari / M/S Oriental Metals India Pvt LtdvsK.S.Mohammed Ali / M/S Hero Plywoods and Boards

This appeal before the Kerala High Court challenged a lower court's dismissal of an interim injunction request concerning the trademark 'Oralium'. The appellants argued that the lower court's findings prejudiced the ongoing lawsuit. However, the High Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the previous observations were merely tentative and did not preclude a fair trial. Given that the main suit was already scheduled for trial, the court deemed an interim injunction unnecessary and directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

trademark926 CP 299 OF 2024

Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Mohammed Firoz Mohammed ShafivsSailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment Through Its Proprietor Sayyad Kadar Sayyad Shabbir

This contempt petition was filed by Baba Wheel Alignment against Sailani (S) Baba Wheel Alignment, alleging continued use of a registered trademark despite an existing court injunction. The petitioner argued that the respondent had committed grave contempt by continuing to use the protected name and style. Although the petitioner requested a bailable warrant, the Court decided to stand over the matter for further hearing on October 7, 2025.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 425/2022, I.A. 3697/2024 (and related cases)

Fiitjee Ltd.vsBrahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed several applications filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking to amend existing Trademark cancellation petitions. The core issue was the merger of Petitioner No. 1 and Petitioner No. 2 following an amalgamation order passed by the NCLT in 2019. The court allowed the formal amendments, permitting only the surviving petitioner (Fiitjee Ltd.) to continue the proceedings against Brahmos Aerospace Pvt Ltd., while noting the delay in filing.

trademark2026:BHC-OS:685

People Interactive India Private LimitedvsAmmanamanchi Lalitha Rani And 3 Ors.

The Plaintiff, owner of the well-known matrimonial platform 'Shaadi.com', filed a suit alleging infringement of its registered trademarks and passing off against the Defendants who used the similar mark and domain name 'getshaadi.com'. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff, decreeing the suit and awarding substantial costs due to the Defendants' non-participation.

trademarkWP No. 6498 of 2026 (NC: 2026:KHC:13236)

M/S. Rohm Clamping Technologies Private LimitedvsM/S. Rohm Gmbh

The Karnataka High Court set aside an earlier order that had appointed a Court Commissioner in a trademark infringement suit. The petitioner challenged the appointment, arguing it was made prematurely without proper documentation. The High Court disposed of the writ petition but allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh, properly documented application for the commissioner's appointment, ensuring due process is followed.

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