IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH M/s.Flora Garments, A Partnership firm, Represented by its Partner Mr.A.Sivakumar, Knit and Knits Compound, 20/187-B, Thilakar Nagar, 15, Velampalayam (post), Tirupur – 641 652. .... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Registrar of Trademarks, The Trademark Registry, Chennai Intellectual Property Office Building, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No. H-1, Sipcot Indl Park Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, Tamil Nadu – 602 117. .... Respondents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999, praying to quash and set aside the order dated 29.05.2025 passed by first respondent made in Opp.No.960999 to App.No.3020184 in Class 25 for Registration of Trade Mark “SANTRO” and allow the impugned application to proceed for Registration in accordance with the Trade Mark Rules.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ashok Kumar J Daga For Respondents : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, SPC-CGSC [R1]

Mr.Premchander [R2]

*****

ORDER

This appeal was filed against the order passed by first respondent dated 29.05.2025 and for a consequential direction to allow the application and to proceed for registration in accordance with the Trade Mark Rules.

2. When this appeal came up for final hearing on 08.01.2026, this Court, after hearing both sides, passed the following order:

“Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

2. This Court at the time of hearing, gave certain suggestions to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned senior counsel sought for some time to take instructions.

3. The alternative mark, which the appellant is willing to adopt shall be served on the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent in advance, in order to enable the second respondent to take instructions.

Post this appeal under the caption “For orders” on

29.01.2026.”

3. The appeal was again listed for hearing on 29.01.2026 and on that day, learned counsel for appellant filed a memo along with the proposed alternative marks. This Court directed learned counsel for second respondent to take instructions from his client on the alternative marks suggested by the appellant.

4. The matter was again listed for hearing on 12.02.2026. After some deliberations, this Court suggested that the third option given by the appellant in the Memo dated 13.01.2026 can be considered. Accordingly, learned counsel for second respondent sought some time to take instructions from his client.

5. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, a Memo dated 19.02.2026 was filed by second respondent and the relevant portions are scanned and reproduced hereunder:

6. The second respondent is agreeable for the suggestion made by this Court with respect to the third option given by appellant in the Memo dated 13.01.2026. However, the second respondent wanted this Court to record certain conditions incorporated in the Memo. The conditions incorporated in the Memo are very reasonable and the second respondent only wants to ensure that the third option is adopted as such and the appellant should not, in future, use the trade mark “SANTRO”

and that this arrangement must be confined to class 25.

6. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Memo can be recorded and the appellant can be permitted to approach the first respondent seeking change of device mark and learned counsel also requested this Court to direct the first respondent to accept the amendment application for change of mark without once again undergoing the entire process.

7. In the considered view of this Court, there will be no difficulty in issuing such direction to first respondent since the only person, who can have objection will be second respondent and the second respondent has already filed a memo, which can be acted upon and necessary directions can be given to the fi