Mohamed Yusuf vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks
2026 Latest Caselaw 105 Mad

Madras High Court

Mohamed Yusuf vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 8 January, 2026

Author: N.Anand Venkatesh

Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh

                                                                                             C.M.A. (TM) No.28 of 2025
                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    DATED: 08.01.2026

                                                             CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

                                                C.M.A. (TM) No.28 of 2025

                     Mohamed Yusuf
                     S/o.Beer Mohammed                                                     .... Appellant

                                                                 Vs.

                     The Registrar of Trade Marks,
                     Trade Marks Registry,
                     Intellectual Property Building,
                     G.S.T. Road, Guindy,
                     Chennai – 600 032.                                                    .... Respondent


                                  Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 91 of the
                     Trademarks Act, 1999, praying to set the order dated 12.12.2024 passed
                     by the respondent refusing registration of the device mark (‘MISS
                     MANGO’),                  bearing Trademark Application No.5780916 in the


                     name of the appellant Mohamed Yusuf and direct the respondent to accept
                     the Trademark Application No.5780916 for the device mark (‘MISS
                     MANGO’) and to proceed in accordance with law.



                                       For Appellant         : Mr.I.Kowser Sulthana

                                       For Respondent        : Mr.K.Balaji
                                                               Central Government Counsel
                                                               *****
                     1/4



https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis                  ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:21 pm )
                                                                                            C.M.A. (TM) No.28 of 2025
                                                           JUDGMENT

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the

order passed by the respondent dated 12.12.2024 refusing to process the

device mark ‘MISS MANGO’ pursuant to the Trademark Application

No.5780916 submitted by appellant and for a consequential direction to

respondent to accept the Trademark Application of the appellant for the

device mark ‘MISS MANGO’.

2. Heard Mr.I.Kowser Sulthana, learned counsel for appellant and

Mr.K.Balaji, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for

respondent.

3. The case of appellant is that he is using the brand name ‘MISS

MANGO’ since December’2021 for clothing and women wear and has

been marketing and selling textiles within the State and also across India.

The appellant filed an application vide Application No.5780916 on

26.01.2023 seeking registration of the device mark ‘MISS MANGO’

under class 25 in relation to clothing, footwear and headgear. Through an

examination report dated 08.08.2023, the respondent raised objections

under Section 11(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 [for brevity ‘the Act’]

by citing a word mark ‘MANGO’. The same was responded by the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:21 pm )

Advocate appearing for appellant on 02.09.2023 explaining that the

device mark ‘MISS MANGO’ as a whole has a distinctive prefix and

visual presentation and it is strikingly different and distinguishable from

the word mark ‘MANGO’. The same is neither similar nor identical to the

cited mark and that therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion or

possibility of offending the cited mark.

4. After conducting hearing, the impugned order dated 12.12.2024

came to be passed by respondent stating that the mark is identical with

the earlier trademark on record and as such, it is objectionable under

Section 11(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has

been filed before this Court under Section 91 of the Act.

5. In the considered view of this Court, the cited mark is admittedly

a word mark ‘MANGO’, of course dealing with similar products. In the

first place, it is not known as to why such a generic word ‘MANGO’ was

registered as a word mark. In any case, the appellant is seeking a device

mark ‘MISS MANGO’ , which is clearly distinguishable and not

identical to the cited mark. Section 11(1) of the Act will come into play

only where there is an identity with the earlier trademark and this

similarity will give rise to confusion on the part of the end users. Both

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:21 pm )

these

N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gm

ingredients are not satisfied in this case and hence, the impugned order

passed by the respondent as if the device mark sought by appellant is

objectionable under Section 11(1) of the Act is unsustainable.

6. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned order passed

by the respondent dated 12.12.2024 is hereby set aside. There shall be a

direction to respondent to proceed further with the application submitted

by the appellant in accordance with law.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in the above terms. No

costs.

08.01.2026 NCC : Yes/No gm

To The Registrar of Trade Marks, Trade Marks Registry, Intellectual Property Building, G.S.T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/01/2026 01:10:21 pm )