Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Rectification of Trademark Register - An aggrieved party can seek rectification of the trademark register if the registration is found to be invalid or improperly granted. This statutory remedy allows challenging the validity of the registration itself, as seen in cases where the registration was opposed or challenged on grounds such as prior use or similarity with existing marks. For example, under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, a party can file a rectification application to contest the validity of a registered trademark Sources: VARAMM Healthcare Private Limited VS MGM Healthcare Private Limited - Madras, ["Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd Through its Power of Attorney Subash Gaijes Selvaraj VS Suraj Sharma - Madras"].
Appeal and Reconsideration - If the registration is rejected by the Trademark Registry, the applicant or interested party can approach higher courts or tribunals to contest the decision, especially when procedural errors or jurisdictional issues are involved. For instance, appeals have been filed challenging the rejection of registration or opposition proceedings at the registry level Sources: Ashiana Ispat Limited vs Kamdhenu Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 380, ["Dolphin Mart Private Limited VS Avenue Supermarts Limited - Delhi"].
Opposition and Filing of Suit - Parties can oppose the registration during the application process through opposition proceedings before the Trademark Registry or file a suit for infringement only after the trademark is registered. If rejected, they may still pursue remedies such as opposition or filing for rectification to challenge the registration's validity Sources: Ashiana Ispat Limited vs Kamdhenu Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 380, ["VARAMM Healthcare Private Limited VS MGM Healthcare Private Limited - Madras"].
Protection under Prior Use - Even if registration is rejected, rights may still be claimed based on prior use under common law or specific provisions like Section 34 of the Act, which protects prior users against subsequent registrations Sources: Amir Biri Factory VS Mohd. Aslam - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 250.
Legal Proceedings and Court Interventions - Courts can intervene when registration is rejected or challenged, allowing for injunctions or declarations of invalidity, especially if the registration was obtained through fraudulent means or is similar to existing trademarks. The courts may also dismiss suits if procedural requirements are not met, such as lack of territorial jurisdiction or improper filing Sources: Surya Hotels & Properties, Represented by Its Managing Partner P. Suresh VS Misty Mountain Plantation Resort, Represented by Its Managing Partner Mikhail Joseph - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 540, ["Deepak Kumar Khemka vs Yogesh Kumar Jaiswal - Delhi"].
The primary remedy upon rejection of a trademark application involves filing for rectification of the register or appealing the decision before appropriate authorities or courts. Parties can also challenge the validity of the registration based on prior use or similarity, and seek injunctions or declarations of invalidity if infringement occurs post-registration. It is crucial to follow procedural requirements, such as obtaining leave before filing rectification or infringement suits, and to utilize statutory provisions like Sections 57 and 34 effectively. Ultimately, the remedy aims to ensure that only valid, properly granted trademarks remain on the register, safeguarding the rights of genuine users and applicants.
References:- VARAMM Healthcare Private Limited VS MGM Healthcare Private Limited - Madras, Nippon Paint Holdings Co. Ltd Through its Power of Attorney Subash Gaijes Selvaraj VS Suraj Sharma - Madras: Statutory remedy via rectification and validity challenges- Ashiana Ispat Limited vs Kamdhenu Limited - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 380, Dolphin Mart Private Limited VS Avenue Supermarts Limited - Delhi: Court procedures and jurisdictional considerations- Amir Biri Factory VS Mohd. Aslam - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 250: Rights based on prior use despite rejection- Surya Hotels & Properties, Represented by Its Managing Partner P. Suresh VS Misty Mountain Plantation Resort, Represented by Its Managing Partner Mikhail Joseph - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 540: Court's role in dismissing suits and procedural remedies
In the competitive world of business, securing a trademark is crucial for brand protection. However, receiving a rejection notice from the Trademark Registry can be disheartening. What is the Remedy if the Application for Registration of Trademark is Rejected? This common question arises frequently under India's Trade Marks Act, 1999. While rejection doesn't end your pursuit, understanding the available legal pathways is essential. This post outlines primary remedies, key considerations, and insights from judicial precedents to guide applicants through the process. Note that this is general information; consulting a trademark attorney is recommended for personalized advice.
The Registrar of Trademarks may reject an application under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for reasons like lack of distinctiveness, descriptiveness, or similarity to existing marks. Once rejected, applicants typically receive an examination report or hearing order. Prompt action is vital, as delays can bar future claims due to principles like res judicata. Courts emphasize that delays in filing an appeal or opposition can lead to the loss of rights, as courts may not entertain petitions from parties who have been lethargic in pursuing their remedies SUDHIR BHATIA TRADING AS V. BHATIA INTERNATIONAL VS CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - Delhi.
Applicants have several statutory remedies, each suited to specific scenarios:
The cornerstone remedy is appealing the Registrar's decision to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) or relevant High Court. Section 109 allows challenges to refusals, objections, or other orders. This must be filed within the prescribed time, typically three months from the order date.
In practice, appeals succeed if the Registrar's decision shows errors in law or procedure. Courts generally do not interfere unless there is a clear error in law or procedure. The applicant must demonstrate that the Registrar's decision was unjustified or erroneous Abu Dhabi Global Market VS Registrar of Trademarks, Delhi - Delhi. For instance, in opposition dismissals, prior use can override later applications, as seen where a court set aside registration of 'FLORASIS' due to similarity with the prior mark 'FLORA' used since 1995, noting the marks were visually, phonetically, and structurally similar Mankind Pharma Limited vs Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Del) 750.
If a conflicting mark is already registered improperly, file a rectification application to remove or amend it. This is useful post-rejection if the basis was an existing registration. Section 57 empowers aggrieved parties to seek alterations.
A case illustrates this: When a petitioner's registration was rejected citing transmission of another mark, they applied for removal under Section 47, highlighting that no exclusive rights arise from ambiguous assignments. The court clarified, no one can claim exclusive right over mark SVS stating that it was assigned to them and noted rectification applications under Section 57 were pending S. V. Sivalinga Nadar & Sons, a firm by Partner S. V. Sivalinga Nadar VS Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry, Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1507.
If the rejecting application was advertised (post-examination), third parties or applicants can oppose within four months. For rejected applicants believing confusion with their prior mark, this pre-empts registration. Timely filing is critical before finalization SUDHIR BHATIA TRADING AS V. BHATIA INTERNATIONAL VS CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - Delhi.
In one instance, an opposition to 'NAVEO' was dismissed by the Mumbai Registry, but the appeal court stressed jurisdiction: Jurisdiction for trademark appeals is determined by the location of the Trademark Registry, not the appellant's office location Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd. , Coimbatore VS Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1948. Time spent in the wrong court was excluded under Limitation Act Section 14.
Navigating remedies requires attention to procedural nuances:
Timeliness: Strict deadlines apply. Appeals under Section 109 must be prompt; otherwise, rejection becomes final and res judicata, barring re-litigation SANDOZ LIMITED VS PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES - Delhi.
Jurisdiction: Appeals go to the High Court overseeing the Registry branch (e.g., Bombay High Court for Mumbai filings). The appeal must be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the location of the trademark registry where the application was filed Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd. , Coimbatore VS Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1948.
Procedural Fairness: Registrars must issue notices before deeming applications abandoned. In a procedural challenge, courts quashed abandonment orders, directing, the Registrar shall pass a speaking order, taking into consideration the plea taken by the applicant Paras Natural Spring Water Pvt. Ltd. VS Registrar of Trade Marks Delhi - 2013 Supreme(Del) 1598.
Evidence of Prior Use: Unregistered prior use can confer superior rights. Courts prioritize this, especially in pharmaceuticals, where prior registered trademark confers better rights - Mere addition of suffix... does not offset similarity Mankind Pharma Limited vs Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Del) 750. Admissible evidence is key; failure led to dismissal in a passing-off suit Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. , Represented by its Managing Director, P. C. Thahir VS K. K. Suresh Trading as M/s. Shastha Industries, Kerala - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1484.
No Rights Until Registration: Pending applications confer no statutory monopoly. A plaint was rejected for lacking registration at filing, as the absence of trademark registration at the time of filing negates claims of infringement 1rm Fitness Equipment VS Priyanka Baru - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 2279.
Courts dismiss cases lacking prima facie merit or jurisdiction. For example, in design infringement claims, failure to prove business within jurisdiction doomed the suit: one isolated purchase could not create jurisdiction Maya Appliances, Chennai VS Urooj Ahmed, Lords Enterprises (India), Delhi & Another - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3635. Similarly, unauthorized licensee applications are fraudulent, granting no rights Chartered Financial Analysis Institute VS Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts Of India - 2010 Supreme(Del) 319.
In rectification disputes, arbitration awards must explicitly assign marks; vague clauses don't suffice S. V. Sivalinga Nadar & Sons, a firm by Partner S. V. Sivalinga Nadar VS Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry, Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1507. These precedents underscore diligence in pleadings and evidence.
A rejected trademark application is not the end—remedies like appeals (Section 109), rectification (Section 57), and oppositions (Section 21) offer robust recourse under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Act swiftly to avoid res judicata, ensure correct jurisdiction, and bolster claims with prior use evidence.
Key Takeaways:- Review rejection grounds immediately and choose the apt remedy.- File appeals in the correct High Court based on Registry location Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd. , Coimbatore VS Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1948.- Provide strong evidence; prior use trumps later filings Mankind Pharma Limited vs Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Del) 750.- Seek procedural fairness; challenge abandonments with speaking orders Paras Natural Spring Water Pvt. Ltd. VS Registrar of Trade Marks Delhi - 2013 Supreme(Del) 1598.
Recommendations:- Immediate Action: Analyze the examination report or order.- Legal Counsel: Engage a trademark expert for filings and strategy.
This overview draws from statutory provisions and cases like SANDOZ LIMITED VS PHARMACEUTICAL AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES - Delhi, SUDHIR BHATIA TRADING AS V. BHATIA INTERNATIONAL VS CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - Delhi, Abu Dhabi Global Market VS Registrar of Trademarks, Delhi - Delhi, Roots Industries India Pvt. Ltd. , Coimbatore VS Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 1948, 1rm Fitness Equipment VS Priyanka Baru - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 2279, Mankind Pharma Limited vs Zhejiang Yige Enterprise Management Group Co. Ltd. - 2025 Supreme(Del) 750, Ashique Exports (P) Ltd. , Represented by its Managing Director, P. C. Thahir VS K. K. Suresh Trading as M/s. Shastha Industries, Kerala - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1484, S. V. Sivalinga Nadar & Sons, a firm by Partner S. V. Sivalinga Nadar VS Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Mark Registry, Chennai - 2019 Supreme(Mad) 1507, Paras Natural Spring Water Pvt. Ltd. VS Registrar of Trade Marks Delhi - 2013 Supreme(Del) 1598, Chartered Financial Analysis Institute VS Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts Of India - 2010 Supreme(Del) 319, Maya Appliances, Chennai VS Urooj Ahmed, Lords Enterprises (India), Delhi & Another - 2009 Supreme(Mad) 3635. Always verify current laws, as procedures may evolve. This is not legal advice—consult professionals for your situation.
#TrademarkAppeal, #IPIndia, #TrademarkRejection
While so, its predecessor secured registration for the trademark on 6.12.2019. Subsequently, the trademark was assigned to the plaintiff on 13.9.2019. ... allowed to proceed to advertisement and the defendant proceeded to registration. ... The remedy under Order VII Rule 11 is an independent and special remedy wherein the court is empowered to summarily dismiss a suit at the threshold if....
The statutory remedy has been given to an aggrieved party to seek for rectification of trademark, whose registration is found to be invalid. ... the defendant that the registration of the plaintiff's trademark 'VARAM' is invalid. ... in the interim injunction applications that the trademark registration obtained by the plaintiff is invalid. ... As it is mandatory that t....
He would submit that due to the following reasons, this appeal cannot be entertained by this Court:- (a) The contesting respondent filed an application seeking for registration of the trademark only before the Trademark Registry at Mumbai. ... registration was also applied by the contesting respondent only before the Trademark Registry at Mumbai. ... Applying the aforesaid decisions, th....
(C)-IPD 29/2025, trademark application no.6845025 in W.P.(C)-IPD 30/2025, trademark application no.6845771 in W.P.(C)-IPD 31/2025, trademark application no.6890704 in W.P.(C)- IPD 32/2025 and trademark application no.6742246 in W.P. ... THAT it is respectfully submitted that the Respondent No.3 (Trademark Registry) is willing to withd....
be entitled to an injunction (being a prohibitive remedy) against the said mark. ... It holds, in plain terms that “before registration is granted for the trademark, there is no right in the person to assert that the mark has been infringed and that a proposed registration which may or may not be granted will not confer a cause of action to the plaintiff, whether the application for ... However, this Cour....
It is no doubt true that the application for registration of a trademark filed by the defendant/respondent was rejected by the trademark registry yet, Section 34 of the Act gives a protection as a prior user thereof. ... It is further submitted that an application for review of the order for dismissal by the Trademark Registry was taken out by the defendant/respondent w....
the plaintiffs had obtained trademark registration. ... 30 and the plaintiff questions the validity of the registration of the defendants trademark, the issue as to the validity of the registration of the trademark concerned, shall be determined only on an application for the rectification of the register and, notwithstanding anything contained in Section ... d) The ap....
It further arose when Plaintiff got knowledge that Defendant made application to Trademark Registry for registration of mark - "1RM". It further arose on 12/9/2020 when Plaintiff filed Oppositions/Objection to the Trademark Registry. ... The appellants have received "1RM Fitness". trademark registration on 17/3/2021. Therefore, there was no statutory recognition of the trademar....
Online status of TM Application No.2922593 shows that Plaintiff's trademark registration for [IMG] bearing No.578631 in Class 25 has been associated with Defendant No.1's Application No.2922593 for [IMG] in Class 25. ... It is denied that Plaintiff has been squatting on the registration in Class 25 since 1992. In any case, challenge to the registration of a trademark on....
For carrying on with its business activities, the appellant has in the year 2007, under application being no.1554350, been granted registration for the trademark ‘FLORA’ in India under Class 5 with a user claim since 1995 in respect of pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of ‘diarrhea’ and related ... Moreover, the respondent no.2 has failed to appreciate that the registration application of the ....
I do not know that according to Trademark law misrepresenting by writing TM in a circle on the label without having a registration is punishable under the said law. I have given an application for registration of the Trademark. If I have obtained registration I should write R in a circle.
In fact, the petitioner has already applied for removal of the trademark under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act 1999. But, the petitioner's application for registration of a trademark was rejected on the ground that there is transmission of Trade Mark No.285501B in favour of respondents 2 - 4.
In case the application for extension of time is allowed, the Registrar shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with law. It is made clear that while deciding the application for extension of time as also while treating the application for registration to have been ‘abandoned’, the Registrar shall pass a speaking order, taking into consideration the plea taken by the applicant while seeking extension of time. If, however, the application is rejected, and conseq....
It is settled law that in case a licensee filed the application for the registration of the same trademark for registration without the consent of the licensor, it amounts to a fraudulent move as during the license period, a party cannot claim the owner of the trademark, even otherwise the foreign registrations, if granted, have no consequence in the matter as no exclusive rights can be claimed by virtue of foreign registrations even if granted by the process of law, hence ground (iii) has no ....
Filing an application for trademark registration did not confer any statutory right until the trademark is registered and it would not amount to protecting the rights of the applicant as no right accrues until the application for registration is accepted and the mark is registered. The said turnover cannot be taken to be the turnover of one particular brand among many sold by the applicant. It is for the applicant to prove the alleged registration of any trade dress as it is ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
