Madras High Court
Lmes Academy Private Limited vs The Controller General Of Patents on 26 June, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
W.P.(IPD)No.10 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.06.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
W.P.(IPD)No.10 of 2025
and WMP(IPD)No.8 of 2025
LMES Academy Private Limited,
Represented by its Authorised Signatory Premanand S.,
Survey No.113/1, Door No.3, 2nd Floor,
Block B1, 200 Feet Radial Road,
Zamin Pallavaram, Chennai 600017. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks,
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill,
S.M.Road, Mumbai 400037.
2. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks &
G.I., Head of Office, Trade Marks Registry, (Ahmedabad),
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan,
Near Chanakyapuri Overbridge,
Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad-380 061.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
W.P.(IPD)No.10 of 2025
3. Mr.Ninad Sharma,
S/o. SH.Nand Lal Sharma,
L-54, Income Tax Colony,
Durgapura Tonk Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan-302 018. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition (IPD) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing respondents 1 & 2 to take
on record the opposition filed against Trade Mark Application No.5905561,
pertaining to the registration of the wordmark “Chitt Yoga” in a manner
known to law.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anish Gopi
For R1 & R2 : Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan, DSG
For R3 : Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar
ORDER
The petitioner seeks a direction to respondents 1 & 2 to take on
record the opposition against Trade Mark Application No. 5905561
pertaining to the registration of the word mark “Chitt Yoga”.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
2. The 3rd respondent herein applied for registration of the above
mentioned trade mark on 22.04.2023. The said application was made on
'proposed to be used' basis. The petitioner asserts that it adopted the mark
'Chitti' in relation to the provision of educational services and that it is the
registered proprietor of Trade Mark No.4345126. Upon noticing the
advertisement in Trade Marks Journal No.2179-0, dated 21.10.2024, the
petitioner states that it endeavoured to file the notice of opposition on
21.02.2025 at 11.42 p.m. The petitioner further asserts that this is within the
statutory limitation period under Section 21(1) of the Trade Marks Act,
1999 (TM Act) read with Rule 42 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2017 (TM
Rules). The petitioner states that payment of fees for the opposition could
not be made in view of a technical glitch in the portal of the Trade Marks
Registry.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the above sequence
of dates and events and contends that the petitioner should not be deprived
of the statutory right to oppose the registration of the trade mark on account
of a technical glitch in the system of the Registrar of Trade Marks. By
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
relying on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Malpani Enterprises v.
Registrar of Trade Marks, W.P.(C)-(IPD) No.27/2024 & CM 87/2024, the
judgment dated 07.01.2025, learned counsel contends that the Delhi High
Court concluded that a technical glitch, due to which the requisite
opposition could not be filed, cannot operate against the intending
opponent. For the same proposition, he also relies upon the judgment of the
Delhi High Court in Dr.Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. Controller General
of Patents Designs and Trademarks, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 813 and
contends that the Delhi High Court suspended the registration certificate
and directed that the said registration would abide by the outcome of the
remanded opposition proceedings. He seeks similar relief.
4. Mr.Rajesh Vivekananthan, learned Deputy Solicitor General,
appears for the 1st & 2nd respondent, and Mr.S.Ramesh Kumar, learned
counsel, appears for the 3rd respondent.
5. At the outset, it should be noticed that the petitioner has
approached the Court seeking a discretionary public law remedy. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
application for registration of trade mark was filed by the 3rd respondent
before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Ahmedabad on 22.04.2023. The said
application was accepted for advertisement and advertised on 21.10.2024.
As per Rule 42(1) of the TM Rules read with sub-section (2) of 21 of the
TM Act, a notice of opposition is required to be filed within four months
from the date of publication in the Trade Marks Journal. By asserting that
such limitation period expires on 22.02.2025 at 12.00 a.m., the petitioner
endeavoured to lodge the notice of opposition on 21.02.2025 at 11.42 p.m.
The petitioner states that such notice of opposition could not be uploaded
because payment could not be made due to a technical glitch. As a result,
the application filed by the 3rd respondent was allowed and the 3rd
respondent's mark has been registered.
6. Even proceeding on the assumption that there was a technical
glitch for which the petitioner is not responsible, the position today is that
the 3rd respondent is the registered proprietor of the mark sought to be
impugned by the petitioner. This is not even a case where the opposition
was received and thereafter treated as abandoned. As noticed above, this is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
case where the opposition was not lodged for reasons set out above. Since
an entry relating to the mark sought to be impugned by the petitioner has
already been made on the register of trade marks, in any event, the petitioner
cannot succeed unless such registration is rectified. A person aggrieved is
entitled to present a rectification petition under Section 57 of the TM Act
either before the Registrar of Trade Marks or before the jurisdictional High
Court. This remedy is available to the petitioner. In these circumstances, I
conclude that it is inappropriate to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
7. For reasons set out above, W.P.(IPD)No.10 of 2025 is disposed of
by leaving it open to the petitioner to file a rectification petition in
accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
26.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
kj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
To
1. The Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks,
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan, Antop Hill,
S.M.Road, Mumbai 400037.
2. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks &
G.I., Head of Office, Trade Marks Registry, (Ahmedabad),
Boudhik Sampada Bhawan,
Near Chanakyapuri Overbridge,
Ghatlodia, Ahmedabad-380 061.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J
kj
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 07:35:49 pm )
