Promoshirt Sm. S.A. v. The Registrar Of Trade Marks

W.P.(C)-IPD 28/2024

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Promoshirt Sm. S.A., directing The Registrar of Trade Marks to renew and restore a trademark application (No. 1355453). The petitioner argued that the delay in issuing the registration certificate, which occurred two years after the validity expired, prevented timely renewal. Citing precedent, the Court held that the proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry, mandating the issuance of the renewal certificate and necessary database corrections.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
W.P.(C)-IPD 28/2024
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Promoshirt Sm. S.A. vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkW.P.(C) 773/2019

Panchhi Petha StorevsUnion Of India & Ors

The Delhi High Court set aside an order passed by the Regional Director which rejected a trademark rectification application. The petitioner argued that the RD exceeded its jurisdiction by making a finding on the ownership of the 'Panchhi' trademark, a matter reserved for IP courts. The court agreed, stating that while the RD can examine name similarity to prevent consumer confusion, it cannot adjudicate disputed questions of trademark ownership between parties involved in ongoing litigation.

trademark2025:MHC:1859 (T)OP(TM) No. 406 of 2023

M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.vsAl Kareem

In a dispute over trademark similarity, the Madras High Court addressed M/s. Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.'s petition seeking rectification of Al Kareem's mark 'AL Kareem'. Despite the petitioner asserting long-standing goodwill and deceptive similarity, the court ultimately favored the respondent. The judgment recognized the existing use of 'AL Kareem' in Hyderabad but imposed a crucial geographical limitation on its registration to prevent confusion outside that specific region.

trademarkW.P.(C)-IPD 42/2025

Cipla LimitedvsUnion Of India Through Department Of Promotion Of Industry And Internal Trade & Anr

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cipla Limited, directing the Trademark Registry to allow the renewal of its 'TRIEXER' trademark. The core finding was that the Registry failed to serve the mandatory statutory 'O3 notice' required under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the trademark having lapsed and the petitioner failing to file timely renewals, the court emphasized this procedural lapse by the Respondent, granting Cipla a chance to regularize its mark.

trademark15 IA(L)-6427-2026

Allied Blenders And Distillers LimitedvsVijayawada Distilleries Private Limited & Another

The plaintiff filed an interim application alleging infringement of its well-known trade mark, "OFFICER'S CHOICE," and related labels by the defendants who adopted deceptively similar marks like "EXECUTIVE CHOICE" and "OLD CROWN". The court examined the proprietary rights, noting that the Plaintiff had secured registrations for these marks and variants. Based on a prima facie comparison of the rival marks and evidence of deceptive similarity, the court granted ad-interim relief.

trademarkOP(TM) No. 57 of 2025

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

M/s.Sri Narasu'S Coffee Company Pvt.Ltd. had filed a petition seeking the rectification and cancellation of the trademark 'Udhaiyam,' registered by S.Sudhakar and S.Dinakar under Application No.1359359 in Class 29. However, both parties subsequently entered into a Memorandum of Compromise dated October 10, 2025. Consequently, the Madras High Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, resolving the dispute amicably.

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