Madras High Court
T.V.Nagarajan vs The Controller General Of Patents on 12 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.10.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
CMA(TM)/4/2023
T.V.Nagarajan
No.57, Plot No.116, Padmavathynagar,
11th Street, Naalur Village,
Thiruvallur District,
Minjur - 601 203. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Controller General of Patents,
Designs and Trade Marks,
BhoudhikSampada Bhavan,
Antop Hill, S.M.Road,
Mumbai - 400 037.
2.The Registrar of Trade Marks,
Trade Marks Registry,
Intellectual Property Office Building,
GST Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
3.Axil,
Represented by its Proprietor - Saurabh Chhabra,
B/382, Shastri Nagar,
Bhilwara,
Rajasthan - 311 001.
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.Axcel,
Represented by its Proprietor - M.E.Madhu,
Plot No.7, Velan Nagar,
Alwarthirunagar,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai - 600 087. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Marks) filed under
Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying to set aside the
order of the Trade Marks Registry made in Application No.4826693
and to register the trade mark "AAXLE" in the name of the Appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Mohanraj
For Respondents : MrK.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, CGSC
1, 2
For Respondent 3 : Mr.Yashvardhan Singh
for M/s.KAY & Partners
For Respondent 4 : Mr.Dhandayudhapani
**********
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
JUDGMENT
The appellant assails an order dated 26.04.2023 by which
Application No.4826693 for registration of the Trade Mark "AAXLE"
was refused.
2. The order of refusal, when read with the examination report
and search report annexed thereto, reveals that the refusal was under
Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the Trade Marks Act) by
citing two marks. The search report mentions the status of the said
mark as opposed and objected, respectively. The proprietors of the
said marks were arrayed as the third and fourth respondents in this
appeal. On instructions, both the third and the fourth respondents
stated that they have no objection to the trade mark application being
allowed.
3. In these circumstances, Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, learned
CGSC, submits that the impugned order may be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The impugned order was issued entirely on the basis of the
marks cited in the search report annexed to the examination report.
By taking into account the fact that the proprietors of the cited marks
have no objection and the fact that no objections were raised under
Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, the impugned order is liable to be
set aside.
5. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.04.2023 is set
aside and, in the circumstances, the application shall proceed to
advertisement. It is made clear, however, that this order will not be
binding on opponents, if any. CMA(TM)/4/2023 is allowed on the
above terms without any order as to costs.
12.10.2023
rna
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
rna
CMA(TM)/4/2023
12.10.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
