Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 15324 Mad
Judgement Date : 29 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
(T)CMA(TM)/60/2023
(OA/10/2016/TM/CHN)
Lupin Limited,
Having its registered Office at
159, CST Road, Kalina, Santacruz (East),
Mumbai - 400 098. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.Cassel Research Laboratories Limited,
P.K.19, Phase V,
Industrial Estate,
Ekkattuthangal, Chennai 600 032.
2.The Registrar of Trade Marks,
Trade Marks Registry,
Chennai Intellectual Property Office,
GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks) filed
under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying to allow the
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
present appeal and that the order dated 20th October 2015 be
quashed / set aside and that Registrar of Trade Marks be directed to
hear the Notice of opposition.
For Appellant : Ms.Antara Balaji
for M/s.Rajesh Ramanathan
For Respondent 1 : Mr.Alagu Narayanan
for M/s.RRN Legal
For Respondent 2 : Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, CGSC
**********
JUDGMENT
The appellant challenges an order dated 20.10.2015 by which
Opposition No.MAS723075 was rejected and Application No.965225
in Class 5 was allowed in favour of the first respondent herein.
2. The principal ground on which the appellant challenges the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis impugned order is that the appellant was not provided a reasonable
opportunity to present its case. In support of this contention, learned
counsel for the appellant referred to the hearing notice dated
20.01.2015 for a hearing on 18.02.2015 and pointed out that the said
notice was addressed to the counsel for the appellant. By referring to
page 322 of the appeal paper book (Ex.H-1), learned counsel
submitted that the notice was returned with the endorsement "left".
Learned counsel submits that the subsequent hearing notices were
also not served on the appellant.
3. Upon service of notice in the appeal, the first respondent
entered appearance through learned counsel and submitted a memo
dated 22.11.2023 stating that the first respondent is not interested in
pursuing the rectification proceedings.
4. The impugned order reflects the fact the opponent was not
represented during the hearings. In the above facts and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis circumstances, it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to
the appellant to contest the opposition. For such purpose, the
impugned order dated 20.10.2015 is set aside and the matter is
remanded for reconsideration by the second respondent.
5. (T)CMA(TM)/60/2023 is disposed of on the above terms
without any order as to costs.
29.11.2023
rna Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
(T)CMA(TM)/60/2023 (OA/10/2016/TM/CHN)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 29.11.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!