- Case number
- CMA(TM) No.13 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal set aside on two grounds. The Registrar had relied on an inability to ascertain whether a rectification petition filed by the applicant against the cited mark was pending elsewhere. The Court held that the pendency of a rectification petition between the applicant and the rival claimant need not per se concern the Registrar, whose task is to evaluate the application under section 9 or section 11(1), and that an inability to verify it is no ground at all to refuse: if particulars were wanted, the applicant could have been asked for them. On the user claim, the Registrar had overlooked the licence document under which the applicant permitted a sister entity to use the mark. The Court also recorded that nothing in the Act prohibits a fresh application where an earlier one was treated as abandoned for non-response to the examination report, the merits never having been considered.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.