M/S. Effra Life Science vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks
2025 Latest Caselaw 3815 Mad

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3815 Mad
Judgement Date : 11 March, 2025

Madras High Court

M/S. Effra Life Science vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 11 March, 2025

Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

                                                                                          CMA(TM).No.3 of 2025

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                    DATED: 11.03.2025
                                                             CORAM
                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
                                                 CMA(TM)No.3 of 2025

                     M/s. EFFRA LIFE SCIENCE,
                     Rep. by its Proprietor S.Kannan,
                     Door No.5/2E, Chanakyan Street,
                     Annamalai Avenue, MAA SAI NILAYAM,
                     Nolambur, Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu-600095.                           ... Appellant

                                                                -vs-

                     The Registrar of Trade Marks,
                     Trade Marks Registry,
                     Intellectual Property Office Building,
                     GST Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.                                   ... Respondent

                     Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trademarks) filed under Section 91 of
                     the Trademarks Act, 1999, to set aside the refusal order of respondent dated
                     03.10.2024, in the application No.5838712 of device mark




                     , and consequently direct the respondent to advertise the said device/Trade
                     Mark in the Journal.

                                    For Appellant           : Mr.S.Nelson


                     1/6


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis               ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 03:56:29 pm )
                                                                                            CMA(TM).No.3 of 2025



                                        For Respondent          : Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, CGSC

                                                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.10.2024 rejecting

application No. 5838712 for registration of the following device mark:

The appellant applied for registration of the above mentioned trade mark on

07.03.2023 in class 35. The appellant is engaged in the business of

marketing and promoting pharmaceutical products.

2. The examination report was issued on 25.09.2023. In such report,

the respondent raised an objection under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks

Act, 1999 (the TM Act) by citing the following mark:

The appellant replied to the examination report on 21.10.2023. In the reply,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 03:56:29 pm )

the appellant stated that there is no similarity between the cited mark and the

appellant's mark. It was also stated that the mark should be compared as a

whole and not by dissecting the same into its elements. The order impugned

herein was issued in the said facts and circumstances.

3. The nature of the appellant's business is evident from the

documents on record, especially the invoice annexed to the user affidavit

dated 28.07.2024. The said affidavit and invoice disclose that the appellant

is a proprietary concern under the name and style of M/s.EFFRA LIFE

SCIENCES and that the appellant markets pharmaceutical products. The

cited mark is a device mark. The appellant applied for registration under

class 35 and the cited mark, which is at the stage of having been accepted

and advertised, is also in class 35. Nonetheless, it should be recognised that

trade mark protection is limited to similar or cognate goods and services

unless the relevant trade mark is a well known mark, as defined in the TM

Act.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 03:56:29 pm )

4. In the impugned order, the application was rejected by holding, in

relevant part, as under:

“The rights conferred by registration of trademark is subject to the rights of the prior application/prior user of the marks. The mark taken in its entirety is significantly identical with and/or deceptively similar to the cited mark. Also the goods/services in respect of which the applicant is seeking registration are the goods/services of same description as those of the cited mark. Therefore the balance of convenience is clearly in favor of the cited mark. Hence the objections:

The mark applied for registration is identical with/similar to earlier trademarks on record, as mentioned in the Examination report and by similarity of marks as well similarity of goods and services covered under such marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion in the mind of public. As such the registration of the mark is objectionable under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. ”

While recording the above conclusion, the respondent has completely failed

to notice that the appellant is engaged in a business which is completely

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 03:56:29 pm )

different from the business of providing repair and installation of machinery

and equipment, which the proprietor of the cited mark appears to undertake.