Tuesday, 19, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Anuj Kumar Gupta vs The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks
2023 Latest Caselaw 14348 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14348 Mad
Judgement Date : 21 November, 2023

Madras High Court

Anuj Kumar Gupta vs The Deputy Registrar Of Trade Marks on 21 November, 2023

Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

                                                                          (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED : 21.11.2023

                                                    CORAM

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

                                              (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023
                                            (OA/SR.63/2020/TM/CHN)

                     Anuj Kumar Gupta, Trading as ATC Tools,
                     Industrial Estate, 19-2-239/1/A,
                     Chandulal Baradari, Bahadurpura,
                     Hyderabad, Telangana 500064, India.                     ... Appellant

                                                      -vs-

                     The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks,
                     Intellectual Property Office,
                     Intellectual Property Office Building,
                     G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032,
                     Tamil Nadu, India.                                    ... Respondent



                     PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks) filed

                     under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying that the order

                     dated 20th February 2020 of the Hon'ble Deputy Registrar of Trade

                     Marks in Application Number 4082478 in Class 08 be dismissed and

                     the Subject Trade Mark be allowed to proceed to registration.

                     1/8


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                               (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023




                                       For Appellant     : Mr.B.Karthik

                                       For Respondent    : Mr.M.Karthikeyan, SPC

                                                         **********


                                                        JUDGMENT

The appellant challenges an order dated 20.02.2020 by which

Application No.4082478 for registration of the following device mark

was rejected:

2. The appellant applied for registration of the device mark

extracted above on 09.02.2019 by asserting use since 17.10.2013 in

relation to hand tools and power tools. By examination report dated

01.03.2019, the Registrar of Trade Marks raised objections under

Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the Trade Marks Act) by

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023

citing two marks. The appellant responded thereto on 16.03.2019 and

stated that the cited marks are distinguishable. After a hearing on

20.02.2020, the application was rejected by the impugned order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the

application and pointed out that the application was in respect of a

device mark, which has been used by the appellant since 17.10.2013.

In order to substantiate use of the mark, learned counsel referred to

invoices issued by the appellant from 17.10.2013. With regard to the

marks cited in the examination report, learned counsel submitted

that the first cited mark is also a device mark in use since 30.09.2011.

Apart from the distinctions between the two device marks, learned

counsel contended that the appellant qualifies as an honest and

concurrent user in terms of Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. He

also submitted that the device mark was adopted in good faith and

that it is derived from the trading name, Anuj Trading Company, of

the appellant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023

4. Learned counsel referred to the certificate of the Chartered

Accountant with regard to the turnover of the appellant from the

financial year 2012-13 to the financial year 2018-19. He also pointed

out that applications for registration in classes 7 and 35 in respect of

the identical device mark were accepted for advertisement.

5. In response to these contentions, Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned

SPC, submitted that the application was rejected on account of the

existence of two prior marks on the register, which are visually and

phonetically similar. He also submitted that the use of the

abbreviation “ATC” as a trade mark is rampant in the hand and

power tools industry and that there is likelihood of confusion among

the public as a result thereof.

6. The examination report cites two marks. The second cited

mark is used in relation to hand tools and hand operated implements

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023

for spraying insecticide. Therefore, the goods to which the appellant

uses the trade mark and the goods to which the second cited mark is

used do not appear to be similar. Turning to the first cited mark, it is

also a device mark containing the element “ATC”. The mark is

registered and learned counsel for the appellant admits that the mark

is in use since 30.09.2011. The mark is applied in relation to tools

including hand tools and power tools. Given the fact that the goods

are similar and the marks are also similar, the conclusion in the

impugned order that the prior marks are phonetically and visually

similar is not devoid of merit.

7. However, it should be noticed that the trading name of the

appellant is Anuj Trading Company and this is borne out from the

certificate issued by the Commercial Taxes Department, Government

of Andhra Pradesh and by the invoices issued by the appellant. It is

also noticeable from the invoices issued from 25.09.2018 that the

trading name has been changed to ATC Tools. Thus, the adoption of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023

the element “ATC” in the device mark appears to be in good faith.

As stated earlier, evidence of use in the form of invoices is available

from 17.10.2013 to 17.03.2020. The appellant has also placed on

record the fact that applications for registration relating to the

identical device mark were accepted for advertisement in allied

classes.

8. Based on the foregoing evidence, the appellant has made out

an arguable case with regard to the contention that it is an honest and

concurrent user of the device mark. By taking into consideration all

the factors set out above, the impugned order calls for interference.

In this regard, it should be noticed that the impugned order also

refers to the meaning of the cited mark being the same as that of the

mark applied for, and the said conclusion is untenable.

9. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and Application

No.4082478 shall proceed to advertisement. It is made clear,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023

however, that this order will not be binding on opponents, if any,

including the proprietors of the cited marks. There shall be no order

as to costs.

21.11.2023 rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes/No

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (T)CMA(TM)/182/2023

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

rna

(T)CMA(TM)/182/2023 (OA/SR.63/2020/TM/CHN)

21.11.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter