Vidli Restaurants Limited v. Alok Sovind Chandewar

Khoday Distilleries Ltd.vsThe Scotch Whisky Association And Ors.

The appeal challenged the Assistant Registrar's order allowing rectification of the trade mark 'Peter Scot' (No. 273203). The respondents argued that the mark offended Section 9 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, as it was likely to deceive or cause confusion by suggesting Scottish origin. The court stayed the operation of the judgment pending further appeal.

Corona Remedies Private LimitedvsFranco-Indian Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

The Bombay High Court quashed an interim injunction that prevented Corona Remedies from using its trademark 'STIMULET' in pharmaceutical products. Franco-Indian Pharmaceuticals had alleged trade mark infringement and passing off based on their registered mark 'STIMULIV'. The court found that despite the similarity, Corona was a registered proprietor of its own mark, and crucially, the two marks were used for distinct product types (allopathic vs. ayurvedic) and different medical conditions, thus failing to establish likelihood of confusion or passing off.

M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros.vsMr.Om Prakash

The Madras High Court dismissed the trademark infringement suit filed by M/S.D.R.Raanka Bros against Mr. Om Prakash. The court found that despite both parties operating in the silver jewelry trade, the defendant's use of 'D.R.R.' alongside descriptive words ('Shri Mahalakshmi Velli Maligai') did not constitute infringement or passing off of the plaintiff's registered marks like 'D.R.RAANKA'. The judgment emphasized that a marked difference in trading style prevents consumer confusion.

Rexcin Pharmaceuticals Private LimitedvsThe Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court intervened in a protracted dispute involving the renewal of the trademark 'GENTALENE.' The petitioner sought relief against the Registrar, who had refused renewal citing statutory limitation. The court found that the Trade Marks Registry's own extreme delay—taking over 32 years to issue the registration certificate despite multiple assignments and opposition dismissals—rendered its insistence on strict adherence to limitation rules unjust. Consequently, the High Court directed the Registry to accept the renewal application, effectively overriding the procedural lapse caused by administrative inaction.

Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd.vsRathinasamy Gomathy and Registrar of Trade Marks at Chennai

The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition filed by Kaleesuwari Refinery Pvt. Ltd. against an existing trade mark registration. The petitioner sought the removal of the impugned device mark, arguing deceptive similarity to its 'GOLD WINNER' brand. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for maintaining the suit. Specifically, the court held that the non-use period prescribed under Section 47(1)(b) had not lapsed following the withdrawal of an earlier petition, and the cause of action under Section 47(1)(a) was barred by prior litigation.