Brief Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, M/S Sakthi Oil Mills, was the registered proprietor of the trademark "THENALEE," registered under Trade Mark No. 1133971 in Class 29.
• The mark was initially registered on September 4, 2006, and was subsequently renewed in 2012, extending its validity up to September 17, 2022.
• Upon expiry of the renewal period, the petitioner sought to renew the trademark in October 2024.
• The Registrar of Trademarks denied the renewal request, citing delay beyond the prescribed statutory period.
• Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court through a writ petition, seeking a Writ of Mandamus directing the Registrar to allow the renewal.

Key Issue for Determination

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek renewal of the trademark despite the expiration of the statutory renewal period, particularly in light of the Registrar’s failure to take steps for its removal from the register.

Reasoning and Legal Analysis

• The Court analyzed the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relevant judicial precedents, and the factual matrix of the case.
• As of October 29, 2024, the impugned trademark had not been removed from the register, allowing the proprietor to retain the right to seek renewal.
• The petitioner relied on the ruling in A. Abdul Karim Sahib and Sons v. Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, 1973 SCC OnLine Mad 390, affirming that a mark remaining on the register allows the proprietor to apply for renewal even after the expiration period.
• The Court also referred to Jaisuryas Retail Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, 2024:MHC:3109; 2024 (100) PTC 25 (Mad), which reiterated that failure by the Registry to remove an expired mark enables the proprietor to invoke the right to renewal.
• The respondent (Registrar of Trademarks) argued that a statutory notice (Form RG-3/13549385) was issued on May 26, 2022, informing the petitioner of the impending expiration.
• The Court observed that mere issuance of a notice does not amount to removal of the mark from the register.
• Recognizing that renewal beyond the prescribed period could set a problematic precedent, the Court ruled that renewal should be permitted but subject to conditions that discourage laxity in the future.

Court’s Decision

• The Hon’ble High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
• The Registrar of Trademarks was directed to permit the petitioner to file a renewal application within 30 days from the date of the order.
• As a condition for renewal, the petitioner was required to pay ₹20,000 as costs to the Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai, within two weeks.
• If the petitioner faced technical difficulties in accessing the online renewal portal, the Registrar was instructed to accept a physical renewal application to ensure procedural fairness.

Law Point Settled by the Court

• If a trademark remains on the register and no formal steps for its removal have been taken, the proprietor retains the right to seek renewal, even beyond the statutory period.
• The Trade Marks Registry has an obligation to actively remove expired marks. Failure to do so allows the proprietor to assert the right to renewal.
• The issuance of an expiry notice alone does not extinguish the proprietor’s right to renewal if the mark has not been struck off from the register.
• Courts possess discretionary authority to permit delayed renewal, albeit with conditions to ensure compliance with statutory timelines in the future.

Conclusion:
This judgment underscores the significance of proactive regulatory action by the Trade Marks Registry. It also safeguards the rights of trademark proprietors by ensuring that procedural delays by the Registry do not unduly prejudice legitimate renewal claims. While reinforcing the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines, the Court has also recognized the necessity of judicial flexibility in cases where procedural lapses occur on the part of the authorities.

Case Title: Sakthi Oil Mills Vs The Registrar of Trademarks
Date of Order: 25 February 2025
Case Number: W.P.(IPD) No.38 of 2024
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Name of Hon'ble 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: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539