Introduction
The case of Naga Limited Vs. Cherukuri Gopi Chand, adjudicated by the Madras High Court, explores the scope of Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which concerns groundless threats of legal proceedings. Heard under C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025, this case involves an application by the defendant, Naga Limited, seeking summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit. The suit sought declarations and injunctions against alleged threats made through notices of opposition to the plaintiff’s trademark applications.
The central issue was whether such notices constitute actionable threats under Section 142, raising significant questions about statutory interpretation and the appropriateness of summary disposal in trademark disputes.
Factual Background
Cherukuri Gopi Chand, trading as Anaganaga, operates a business in Gachibowli, Telangana, and applied to register the trademark “ANAGANAGA” and its variants for services—likely in the restaurant sector—under Class 43. Naga Limited, based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, holds registered trademarks for “NAGA” across multiple classes, including Class 43. The dispute arose when Naga Limited filed notices of opposition against three of Gopi Chand’s applications, alleging “ANAGANAGA” was deceptively similar to “NAGA” and infringed its rights.
Gopi Chand then filed a suit, claiming these notices amounted to groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act.
Procedural Background
The suit was filed under Sections 134 and 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules. Gopi Chand sought multiple reliefs, including:
- A declaration that “ANAGANAGA” is distinct from “NAGA”
- A declaration that his use did not infringe Naga’s rights
- An injunction against further threats
- Damages for business losses
Naga Limited responded with an application (A. No. 2833 of 2025) under Order XIII-A of the CPC for summary dismissal, arguing the suit had no real prospect of success.
Core Dispute
The key question was whether the notices of opposition filed by Naga Limited constituted groundless threats under Section 142(1). Naga argued that opposition proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks are statutory and not threats, thus falling outside Section 142. It also stated that Gopi Chand had not shown commercial use of “ANAGANAGA,” weakening his claim. Naga maintained its opposition was legitimate given its registered rights.
Gopi Chand, in contrast, argued that statements in the notices alleging infringement and threatening action under Sections 102 and 103 amounted to actionable threats. He urged a broad interpretation of “or otherwise” in Section 142(1) and alleged the opposition was an abuse of process, as Naga did not operate in the same business segment.
Discussion on Judgments
Both sides cited key judgments. Naga Limited relied on Chartered Institute of Taxation v. Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Limited (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11952), where it was held that opposition proceedings are formal statutory actions and not threats under Section 142.
Gopi Chand cited Sidharth Wheels Private Limited v. Bedrock Limited (1987 SCC OnLine Del 365) to argue that “or otherwise” in Section 142 should be interpreted broadly to include private notices of opposition. He also referenced D. Val Divora v. Union of India (2021 (4) Mh. L.J. 282) to allege abuse of process by Naga.
Both parties also implicitly relied on Godaddy.com LLC v. Puravankara Projects Limited (2022 (91) PTC 440 (Mad)), where Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had outlined principles for summary judgment under Order XIII-A. This precedent guided the court’s evaluation of the summary dismissal application.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy’s detailed judgment began by analyzing whether the opposition notices constituted threats under Section 142(1). He held that opposition proceedings are formal statutory actions and not “threats” as intended by the section.
The court acknowledged that “or otherwise” can include private communications (per Sidharth Wheels), but clarified that opposition notices are distinct since they initiate a formal legal process. Gopi Chand was advised to challenge the opposition before the Registrar or, if appropriate later, pursue a claim for malicious prosecution.
Regarding summary judgment, the court applied the Godaddy.com principles. It found that Gopi Chand’s prayer for a declaration on dissimilarity interfered with the Registrar’s jurisdiction and that other reliefs lacked legal foundation. As such, the court concluded that the suit had no real prospect of success and warranted summary dismissal.
Final Decision
On 16 July 2025, the Madras High Court allowed Naga Limited’s summary judgment application, dismissing C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025. The court held that the opposition notices were not threats under Section 142, and that the suit lacked merit to proceed to trial.
Law Settled in This Case
This judgment clarifies that notices of opposition under trademark law are not groundless threats under Section 142, as they are formal statutory proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that Section 142 targets unjustified threats made through means such as circulars or advertisements—not legitimate statutory actions.
The court also reinforced the use of summary judgment under Order XIII-A in commercial disputes where there is no real prospect of success, especially when the issues are purely legal and do not require oral evidence. This decision prevents premature litigation that could disrupt ongoing statutory processes, while preserving the plaintiff’s right to alternative remedies post-resolution of opposition proceedings.
Case Details
- Case Title: Cherukuri Gopi Chand Trading as Anaganaga Vs. Naga Limited
- Date of Order: 16 July 2025
- Case Number: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1728
- Court: Madras High Court
- Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
