Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 66628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Kumaresh Babu, J
M/s.Prime Fragrancess – Appellant
Versus
The Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
WP(IPD) No. 9 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anjali Viswanaathan
For the Respondents: S. Indumathi Ravi
A trademark application cannot be refused for non-appearance if the hearing notice was served on a former attorney instead of the current registered attorney of record.
Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 16.02.2026 regarding Trade Mark Application No.6140376 for the mark “GOLDEN SCENT”. The application had been refused by the respondent due to the non-representation of the applicant or their counsel during the hearing. The court found that the hearing notice was erroneously sent to the erstwhile registered attorney despite the records being updated to the current attorney. The central issue was whether the notice for the hearing was properly served upon the petitioner or its registered attorney. The court observed that while the records of the Registry had been modified on 18.10.2025 to reflect the current attorney, the notice dated 24.12.2025 was still addressed to the previous attorney, thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair opportunity to be heard. With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the refusal of a trademark application due to non-appearance at a hearing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. invalidity of notice served on an erstwhile attorney when a current attorney is on record. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. restoration of application and direction for fresh notice to ensure a fair hearing. (Para 5) |
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records from the Respondent pertaining to the Trade Mark Application No.6140376 in Class 3 for the Mark “GOLDEN SCENT” (Device), and quash the Respondent’s Order dated 16.02.2026 passed in respect of the said application and consequently direct the Respondent to restore the said Trade Mark Application and issue a fresh hearing notice to the Petitioner at the correct address for service, namely its present counsel M/s. Daga and Daga and thereafter proceed to decide the application de novo in accordance with law, after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed to quash the respondent’s Order dated 16.02.2026 passed in Application No.6140376 in Class 3 for the Mark “GOLDEN SCENT” (Device) and consequently direct the respondent to restore the said Trade Mark Application and issue a fresh hearing notice to the Petitioner at the correct address for service, namely its present counsel M/s. Daga and Daga and thereafter proceed to decide the application de novo in accordance with law, after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
2. In the impugned order, it was noted that due to the non-representation of either the applicant or their counsel/attorney during the course of the hearing, the objections were sustained and the application of the petitioner was not accepted, and consequently, registration was refused.
3. The short issue involved in the present writ petition is the claim of the petitioner that no notice was served upon either the petitioner or its registered attorney and in that regard the impugned order is assailed.
4. A perusal of the notice dated 24.12.2025 reveals that the notice was addressed to M/s. Nainar and Company, who was the erstwhile registered attorney in the records of the Registry. It is noted that, by virtue of an amendment carried out on 18.10.2025, the name of the registered attorney had been modified, and presently, M/s. DAGA and DAGA is shown as the registered attorney in the records of the Registry. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the notice was not served on the current registered attorney, but on the erstwhile attorney.
5. In such view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the application filed by the petitioner/applicant stands restored to its original file. As a consequence, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh notice to the present registered attorney, as shown in its records, and initiate the proceedings afresh.
With the above directions, this writ petition stands allowed. No costs.
21-07-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
mp
