- Case number
- (T)CMA(TM)/143/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Refusal under sections 9 and 11 set aside on both citations. As to the first cited mark, its proprietor had consented to registration after the impugned order; the Court held that the consent of the proprietor of a cited mark is not by itself sufficient to preclude an objection by the Registrar, but taken together with the difference in goods, carbon black materials against chemicals used in purification through displacement chromatography, the objection no longer stood. As to the second, a composite label mark of at least three elements, section 17(1) makes clear that registration of a composite mark protects the mark as a whole, and section 17(2), opening with a non obstante clause, that protection does not extend to the individual elements unless the proprietor separately applies for and obtains registration of them. It was not the Registrar's case that the proprietor held any such separate registration for the element relied on, so that objection failed too.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.