In a significant ruling for trademark holders, the Madras High Court has set aside an order of the Trade Marks Registry that cancelled a long-standing trademark without notice. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the unilateral cancellation of the “SAKTHI” trademark, registered since 2005, violated basic principles of natural justice and could not stand in law.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed by Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy, trading as Sakthi Trading Company, a Tamil Nadu-based food products manufacturer. The company adopted the mark “SAKTHI” as early as 1977 and used it continuously for spices, masala powders, cereals, pickles, edible oils, flour, papad, and rice.
To secure statutory protection, the appellant obtained trademark registrations for “SAKTHI” and its variations under several classes, including Class 30. For rice, the trademark was registered on 15 July 2005 under Certificate No. 400179 and renewed periodically.
Trouble began in February 2023 when a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks listed several applications as “abandoned” for failure to file counter-statements in opposition proceedings. To the appellant’s surprise, its already registered trademark appeared in that list. Subsequent online checks revealed that the registration certificate had been cancelled without any prior notice.
Dispute Over Opposition
The controversy deepened when Kumar Food Industries Limited claimed to have filed an opposition to the “SAKTHI” mark in 2018. According to the appellant, this opposition related to a different trademark and not its registered mark for rice. Despite representations made to the Registrar in February 2023, no corrective action followed.
Although the Delhi High Court later recorded an undertaking from the authorities to withdraw the controversial public notices, the Registrar still passed an order in May 2025 declaring the application “abandoned” for non-filing of a counter-statement.
Court’s Observations
Justice Venkatesh framed the core issue clearly: whether a trademark certificate already granted could be cancelled unilaterally and the application revived for opposition.
The court noted that once a registration certificate is issued, it cannot be cancelled behind the owner’s back.
“If this certificate has to be cancelled for any reason, the appellant ought to have been put on notice and given an opportunity,” the bench observed, adding that failure to do so makes the cancellation a legal nullity.
The judge further pointed out that if any party is aggrieved by a registered trademark, the law provides for rectification proceedings not unilateral cancellation by the Registrar. Reviving the application and entertaining opposition years later, the court said, was a procedure “nowhere contemplated” under the Trade Marks Act.
Decision
Holding the Registrar’s actions to be arbitrary and in clear violation of natural justice, the High Court quashed the impugned order dated 9 May 2025. The court directed the Trade Marks Registry to reinstate the “SAKTHI” trademark registration under Certificate No. 400179 within four weeks.
With this, the appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.
Case Title: Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Case Number: CMA (TM) No. 16 of 2025
Pronounced On: 27 January 2026
