SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 5257

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Shri Prasanna Anjaneya Agrotech - Petitioner
Versus 
Mr. Enterprises – Respondent 
O.P.(T.M.) 57 of 2024
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms.Swati Mittal
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Karthikeyan

The court emphasized that prior user rights prevail over subsequent registrations, particularly when malafide intentions to misappropriate goodwill are evident. The removal of confusingly similar trademarks is vital to protect consumer interests.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 57 - Rectification of trademark registry - Petition to remove the impugned trademark registration No.5956431 due to prior usage of the mark M R GOLD by the petitioner - Court found that the respondent's registration was done with malafide intentions to misappropriate goodwill and create confusion in the market - Registration of identical marks contravenes principles intended to protect consumers under the Act. (Paras 1, 7, 22, 24)

(B) Prior user rights - The petitioner established prior usage of the trademark through invoices dating back to 2008, and sustained commercial use clearly identified them as the prior user despite the respondent's later registration - The court emphasized that dishonest adoption of a mark must be discouraged to maintain market integrity. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner has been using the trademark M R GOLD for rice and sought its removal from the register due to the respondent's alleged copying of their trademark. The petitioner provided evidence of trademark usage and established prior relations with the respondent, who was a former distributor. (Paras 5, 22)

Findings of Court:
The petition was allowed and the second respondent was directed to remove the trademark from the register, as the respondent's registration was likely to mislead the public and infringe on the petitioner's established goodwill. (Paras 24, 25)

Issues: Whether the prior usage of the mark by the petitioner outweighs the respondent's registration, and the legitimacy of the respondent’s claims to the trademark. (Paras 21, 22)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the likelihood of confusion due to the respondent's trademark registration was evident, and the principles of fair competition demand that established trademarks should be protected from fraudulent registration attempts. (Paras 22, 24)

Result: Petition allowed; trademark registration No.5956431 removed from the register.

Table of Content
1. establishment of petitioner’s brand m r gold. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. allegations against the 1st respondent for trademark copying. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. fraudulent registration of 1st respondent's trademark. (Para 8 , 9)
4. evidence supporting petitioner’s claim of prior usage. (Para 10 , 11)
5. court’s emphasis on the purity of the trademark register. (Para 12 , 18 , 21)
6. likelihood of confusion with registered trademarks. (Para 19 , 22)

ORDER

This Original Petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

(a) Allow the present petition;

(b) Direct the respondent No.2 to rectify the register in relation to the Trademarkunder Registration No.5956431 in Class 30 by removing the trade mark from the Register.

(c) Cost of the proceeding be awarded in favour of the petitioner;

2. The petitioner is a part of the esteemed MRV Group, which represents a group of family run businesses comprising individuals who have been working in the Rice Mill Industry for almost their entire lives which includes the partners of the firm M.R.Suresh, M.R.Srikanth, M.R.Rohini, M.R.Shyamsunder, M.R.Deepti and M.R.Sangeetha.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner viz., Shri Prasanna Anjaneya Agrotech is one of the units of the MRV Group, deals in Sona Masoori rice, HMT Kolam rice and Lachkari rice. Among the multiple brands that the petitioner owns, the brand M R GOLD is the most popular in Karnataka and well known for the Sona Masoori Raw Rice. The brand name has been directly derived from the name of the MRV Group. This MRV group was established in the year 1964, with a vision to consolidate the rice industry. The MRV Group became one of the leading millers and exporters in the industry. The MRV group has a unique business model and the goodwill of the customers which enabled the firm to consolidate on its leadership position. The MRV group through its various units has been selling many varieties of rice in bulk quantities throughout India and have been the suppliers to all top markets in Southern and Central India.

4. According to the petitioner, M R GOLD brand was originally used by the petitioner’s predecessor viz., M/s.Shri Panchamukhi Industries which was established in the year 2007. In the year 2016, the said M/s.Shri Panchamuki Industries leased out their rice mill and godown to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioners' family carried out the said business and thereafter from 2016 onwards, the petitioner has been using and commercially exploiting the brand M R GOLD. M R GOLD and its variants in relation to its rice is popular in Indian Market for a considerable period. The petitioner's mark is prominently showcased on their business website as http://mrvgroup.in/ and http://mrvgroup.in/spaa/ which is accessible to general public around the country. The petitioner claims that their brand name viz., M R GOLD is in long usage and their consolidated sales figures of their operation from the year 2014 to 2017 is as under:-

FISCAL YEARSALES FIGURES (INR)
2014-201528,61,22,707.75
2015-201631,10,34,289.75
2016-201715,06,03,531.25

The petitioner made an application before the Trade Mark Registry by way of Trademark application bearing No.5517812 on 05.07.2022 concerning the mark M R GOLD for their rice varieties in order to secure the statutory protection. After application, a third party opposition has been made for the said trademark registration. The said application is still pending on the file of the Trademark Registry.

5. According to the petitioner, the 1 respondent had prior business relations with the petitioner as the Distributor of the products bearing the mark M R GOLD during 2016-17 and 2017-18 and thus had access to the packaging labels of the petitioner’s products. It has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the 1st respondent has copied the trademark and trade dress of the petitioner and has been using the same for selling their products.

6. It is stated by the petitioner that they filed the present Petition

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top