- Case number
- (T)CMA(TM) 134/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Refusal under sections 9 and 11 set aside. Only two of the cited marks were registered as on the date of the search report, both had lapsed for want of renewal, and in any event their goods, telecommunication and sound reproduction equipment, were not similar to the solid state power sources claimed. Section 11(1) is to be worked in two stages: first whether identical or similar marks are used on identical or similar goods, and only if that is crossed, whether confusion on the part of the public is likely, including by association.
Disposition
Allowed. Impugned order set aside; the application to proceed to advertisement.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.