Madras High Court
Raghuvar ( India ) Limited vs The Registrar Of Trademarks on 27 February, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
(T)CMA(TM)No.76 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
(T)C.M.A.(TM)No.76 of 2023
(OA/1/2020/TM/CHN)
Raghuvar ( India ) Limited,
Station Road, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302 018. ... Appellant
-vs-
1.The Registrar of Trademarks,
The Trademarks Registry,
IP Building, GST Road,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
2.S.A.S. Refineries (P) Limited,
M.G. Road, Aravinda Nagar,
Gauribidanur - 561208
Kolar, Karnataka. .. Respondents
Prayer: Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trade Mark) is filed under
Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to allow this appeal by setting
aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2019 in MAS-197995 against TMA
No.861833 in Class 29 by the 1st respondent.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 01:42:48 pm )
(T)CMA(TM)No.76 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar
Ms.Mehavarshini M.R.
For R1 : Mr.Rajesh Vivakanandan, DSG
For R2 : Mr.A.Swaminathan
JUDGMENT
The 2nd respondent herein had applied for registration of the trade
mark JAI HANUMAN brand in respect of edible oils under Application
No.861833. The appellant filed opposition No.197995 in respect thereof.
The opposition was rejected and Application No.861833 was directed to
proceed further as per Rules by restricting the area of sale to South India
and deleting Vanaspathi from the specification of goods.
2.Learned counsel for the opponent/appellant submits that the
appellant opposed the application by pointing out that the appellant and its
predecessor in interest had used the trade mark "HANUMAN" in respect of
edible oil Vanaspathi since the year 1966. He points out that the appellant
has placed on record the assignment deed executed by Rohtas Industries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 01:42:48 pm )
Limited in favour of the appellant. In spite of applying for registration of
such assignment, he submits that the Registrar of Trademarks disregarded
the appellant's claim on the basis of use by its predecessor in interest.
Learned counsel contends that this conclusion is untenable especially in
view of the fact that the relevant assignment deed was available and that the
assignment was not recorded in spite of a request being made for the same.
He also submits that the opposition was rejected notwithstanding the
appellant's prior use on pan-India basis.
3.In response, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that no
interference is called for with the impugned order and that reasonable
restrictions were imposed thereby ensuring that there is no confusion or
deception among the public.
4.On examining the impugned order, it appears that the opposition
was rejected on two grounds. The first ground of rejection is that the
assignment from Rohtas Industries Limited to the appellant had not been
recorded in the records of the Trade Marks Registry. Given the fact that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 01:42:48 pm )
assignment deed was available with the Trade Marks Registry and a request
for registration of the assignment had been made, this conclusion is not
tenable. It is noticeable, however, that the opposition was also rejected on
the ground that the appellant failed to produce any evidence of use of its
mark in the states of South India. The impugned order on this aspect is as
under:
“A proposal was also suggested for restricting the
area of the applicants, by the applicants during the
arguments and also earlier before hearing but the
opponent is insisting that it should not be considered,
though the documentary evidence filed by the opponents
does not show any use of their mark in South Indian
states.
In the light of the foregoing, when the opponent is
not using in South India, the question of confusion does
not arise, and I am of the view that with restriction of
area to South India and excluding vanaspathi from the
specification of goods, to my understanding is just and
reasonable.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 01:42:48 pm )
5.On examining the documents placed on record by the appellant, it
appears that there is no evidence of use of its mark in any of the South
Indian States. In those circumstances, this conclusion of Registrar of
Trademarks contains no infirmity. Consequently, interference with the order
is not warranted.
6.For reasons set out above, (T)CMA(TM)No.76 of 2023 stands
dismissed without any order as to costs.
27.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
kj
To
The Registrar of Trade Marks,
The Trademarks Registry,
IP Building, GST Road,
Guindy, Chennai 600 032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 01:42:48 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
kj
(OA/1/2020/TM/CHN)
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/03/2025 01:42:48 pm )
