- Case number
- CMA(TM) 2/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
A refusal under section 11(1) fell on every ground. Evidence of use cannot be rejected for want of turnover and advertising figures where invoices, online material and the applicant's own registrations in other classes are on record. A cited mark shown as 'objected' in the search report cannot be treated as valid, subsisting and the prior user. The rule that a combination of two known words is not an invented word is correct but has no application to a device mark. And a certificate under section 65B of the Evidence Act is required only for an electronic record within the producer's own possession, control or custody, so none can be demanded for third party news articles, which the Registry can access and verify for itself.
Disposition
Allowed. Impugned order set aside; the application directed to be accepted for advertisement. Not binding on opponents.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.