IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.ANAND VENKATESH
Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder, Duraisamy, Trading as Sakthi Trading Company, Tamil Nadu – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks, Office of the Trade Mark Registry, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 [for brevity hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] against the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 09.05.2025 and for a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate the registration of the appellant as granted under Certificate No.400179 dated 15.07.2005.
2.The appellant is a manufacturer of food products. In the course of business, the Trademark “SAKTHI” was adopted by the appellant. The food products included varieties of spice and masala powders, cereals, pickles, edible oil, flour and papad. The appellant was trading across India and the goods were also exported to foreign countries.
3.The appellant had adopted the mark “SAKTHI” in the year 1977 and it was used openly, continuously and extensively without any interruption.
4.With a view to obtain statutory protection for the said Trademark, the appellant applied for and obtained registration of the mark “SAKTHI” and it’s formatives under various Classes including Class 30 in India.
5.Apart from the above, the appellant also applied for Copyright of the unique style, distinctive colour scheme and getup of its labe
Unilateral cancellation of a trademark registration without notice violates procedural fairness and natural justice principles.
The right to cancel a trademark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act is independent of ongoing infringement suits and remains available for invocation regardless of related Section 124 implication....
Section 20 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for advertisement of an application, either after acceptance or before acceptance, so as to afford an opportunity to the public, to oppose the registratio....
The Registrar of Trade Marks must issue notices under Section 25(3) to the registered proprietor to ensure compliance before trademark removal; failure to do so enables renewal despite lapse.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the renewal notice and the entitlement of the pe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of exhausting alternative remedies provided by the Trade Marks Act before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of In....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark from the register of trade marks must establish a fresh cause of action for rectific....
Consent orders, once established without coercion or fraud, are binding and cannot be overturned unless substantial error is proven.
The court affirmed that not all amendments to a trademark application are substantial alterations; the amendment's nature must be assessed based on its impact on the original application.
The court affirmed that a party must produce valid documentation of trade mark registration to claim ownership, and the power of review is limited to errors apparent on the record.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.