The Madras High Court has delivered a significant verdict, setting aside the order of the Registrar of Trademarks that cancelled the trademark 'Sakthi' for rice, which was granted to Sakthi Trading Company two decades ago. Justice N Anand Venkatesh, presiding over the case, strongly criticized the registrar's decision, stating it "smacks of arbitrariness and is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice." This ruling came in response to an appeal filed by the Erode-based Sakthi Trading Company, challenging the cancellation order dated May 9, 2025.
Key Reasons for Overturning the Cancellation
The court outlined three primary grounds for quashing the registrar's order, emphasizing procedural lapses and legal inconsistencies.
Violation of Natural Justice
Firstly, the court highlighted that the company's application had already been processed, resulting in the issuance of a registration certificate on July 15, 2025. Justice Venkatesh asserted that if such a certificate were to be cancelled, the company must be duly notified and given a fair opportunity to respond. Failure to provide this notice renders the cancellation legally null and void, as it disregards fundamental principles of natural justice.
Improper Legal Procedure
Secondly, the judge pointed out that once a registration certificate is granted, any grievances should be addressed through a rectification process under the Trademark Act. However, the registrar unilaterally cancelled the certificate, reinstated the application, and entertained opposition without legal basis. This procedure is not contemplated under the existing Trademark Act and Rules, making the registrar's actions legally untenable.
Contradiction with Prior Undertakings
Thirdly, the registrar had previously given an undertaking to the Delhi High Court to withdraw public notices regarding the abandonment of the 'Sakthi' trademark application within ten days. The Madras High Court reasoned that if these notices are withdrawn, there is no valid ground to entertain opposition or require the company to file a counter-response. This inconsistency further undermined the registrar's order.
Court's Directive and Implications
As a result, the court has not only set aside the cancellation order but also issued a directive for the registrar to reinstate the trademark registration within four weeks. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to legal protocols and ensuring fairness in trademark disputes, potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in India's intellectual property landscape.
