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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 30482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
P.G.Purushan – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar Of Trade Marks – Respondent
Writ Petition (IPD)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.N.Devi
For the Respondents: Mr.S. Janarthanam, SPC

Registered trademark proprietor entitled to portal access or physical renewal application despite delay.

Headnote:The Trade Marks Rules require renewal application within six months of registration. Petitioner applied for ICEEGEL trademark registration in Class 5 on 10.10.2006; opposition withdrawn on 13.09.2022 led to registration on 08.02.2023, but petitioner lacked portal access and was unaware. Court finds registered proprietor entitled to renewal access despite delay. Issue: Whether registered proprietor unable to access renewal portal can seek mandamus for renewal. Ratio: Prior decision holds right to renewal exists in such circumstances; equitable to provide access as no removal steps taken. Petition disposed directing respondent to provide online or physical renewal application access and process upon fee payment.

Table of Content
1. trademark application, opposition withdrawn, registered post-delay. (Para 1)
2. renewal required within six months per rules. (Para 2)
3. proprietor entitled to renewal despite portal inaccessibility. (Para 3)

ORDER

The petitioner lodged an application for registration of trade mark ICEEGEL on 10.10.2006 in Class 5. An opposition was lodged in relation thereto on 30.07.2008. Such opposition was withdrawn on 13.09.2022. Pursuant thereto, the trade mark was registered on 08.02.2023. Asserting that the petitioner was unaware about the registration until recently, the petitioner states that he is unable to apply for renewal on account of not having access to the respondent's portal for such purposes.

2. Mr.S.Janarthanam, learned SPC, submits that the petitioner should have applied for renewal within six months from the date of registration as per the Trade Marks Rules. In any event, he admits that no steps have been taken till date for the removal of the petitioner's mark.

3. In Jaisurya's Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2024:MHC:3109, I examined the law on this issue and concluded that the registered Proprietor has the right to seek renewal in circumstances such as those in which the petitioner is placed. The petitioner has asserted that he is unable to access the portal in order to lodge an application for renewal. It is just and necessary that such access be provided to the petitioner.

4. For reasons aforesaid, this petition is disposed of on the following terms:

(i) The respondent is directed to either provide the requisite online access to enable the petitioner to lodge the renewal application or receive a physical application for renewal in the alternative.

(ii) Subject to payment of requisite fees in this regard, the respondent is directed to consider and process the request for renewal upon receipt of the application in this regard.

(iii) No costs.

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