{"id":323182,"date":"2024-05-29T15:00:41","date_gmt":"2024-05-29T09:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=323182"},"modified":"2024-06-04T10:14:36","modified_gmt":"2024-06-04T04:44:36","slug":"supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/","title":{"rendered":"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> In a set of two Special Leave to Appeals by the Electronica Hitech Machines Tools Private Limited against the Bombay High Court’s decision, whereby the High Court had allowed the Electronica India Ltd.’s applications, remanding the consideration of two Forms TM-24 for fresh consideration to the Trade Marks Registrar and to pass a speaking order, the Division Bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta, JJ., refused to interfere with the impugned judgment and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to decide and give effect to the impugned judgment, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is received.<\/p>\n

The Court also clarified that while deciding, the Registrar of Trade Marks will remain uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court.<\/p>\n

The Electronica India Ltd. (‘original petitioner’\/ ‘present respondent’) challenged the purported orders\/ communication of the Trade Mark Registry for allowing the two Form TM-24 Applications of the Electronica Hitech Machines Tools Private Limited (‘original respondent’\/ ‘present petitioner’) for bringing on record their name as the subsequent proprietor. Electronica India Limited challenged the recording of Electronica Hitech Machines Private Limited as subsequent proprietor of the “Electronica” trademarks.<\/span> The High Court on perusal of the available documents and submissions, viewed that the Trade Mark Registry had abdicated its duty under Section 45<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> which provides for ‘registration of assignments and transmissions’ and the Registrar of Trade Marks upon a receipt of an application for either assignment or transmission has to follow due process of law and in certain instances, require the applicant to furnish evidence in proof of title where there is a reasonable doubt about veracity of any statement or any document furnished, and only after such satisfaction the Registrar may register the applicant as the proprietor of the trade mark in respect of the goods or services in respect of which the assignment or transmission has effect.<\/p>\n

The High Court noted that the original petitioner had issued the Objection Letter dated objecting to the original respondent’s request on Form TM-24, however, without considering the Objection Letter, and without passing an order thereupon by the Registrar, the applications made on Form TM-24 were allowed. Further, the High Court noted that the Registrar had issued two communications (purported orders) dated 25-01-2018 and 18-05-2018 which communicated that the Applications under Form TM-24 were allowed and the change effected in the register of trademarks. The communication dated 18-05-2018 was uploaded as an order on the online database of the Trade Marks Registry in respect of the two subject trademarks.<\/p>\n

The High Court viewed that the Registrar acted contrary to Section 45 of the Act and failed to consider the Objection Letter of the original petitioner. The High Court also noted that the original respondent had failed to disclose that there were proceedings between them and the original petitioner where the petitioner had raised the issue on title of the subject trademark before the Pune District Court.<\/p>\n

Hence, the High Court considered it necessary to remand back TM-24 applications to the Registrar for fresh consideration, as no order was passed by the Registrar. The impugned orders\/communications of the -Registrar of the Trade Marks, Mumbai allowing the requests of original respondent in Form TM-24 were set aside. The High Court directed the Registrar to consider the applications in Form TM-24 de novo<\/span> after granting the original petitioner an opportunity of being heard and thereafter, passing a speaking order on the requests of the original respondent in Form TM-24 which shall be in conformity with Section 45 of the Act.<\/p>\n

However, considering the submissions for stay, the High Court stayed the said order for a period of four weeks from the date of order, and directed the Registrar to not proceed with de novo hearing of the applications under TM-24.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court, the original respondent filed a Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

CASE DETAILS<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/colgroup>\n\n\n
\n

Citation:<\/span>
2024 SCC OnLine SC 1190<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellants :<\/span>
Electronica Hitech Machine Tools Private Limited<\/p>\n

Respondents :<\/span>
Electronica India Limited<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case<\/p>\n

For Petitioner(s):<\/span>
Senior Advocate V. Giri, Senior Advocate Anant Vijay Palli, Advocate N.K. Bharadwaj, Advocate Ameet Deshpande, AOR Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Advocate Bikash Ghorai, Advocate Vasupriya Awasthi, Advocate Shubhankar Ranade, Advocate Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Advocate Shresth Mukharya, Advocate Nihar Dharmadhikari, Advocate Jagriti Pandey<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span>
Advocate Sanjeev Kapoor, Advocate Hiren Kamod, Advocate Nirupam Lodha, Advocate Nishad Nadkarni, Advocate Aashif Navidia, Advocate Trishala Trivedi, Advocate Gautam Wadhwa, Advocate Jaanvi Chopra<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

CORAM :<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\"Sanjiv
Sanjiv Khanna, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Dipankar
Dipankar Datta, J.<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"trade<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Trade Mark Registry allowed the Form TM-24 Applications of the Electronica Hitech Machines Tools Private Limited for bringing on record their name as the subsequent proprietor. Electronica India Limited challenged the said purported order.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":323186,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[2569,69234,69233,69232,25234,5363,49079,52951],"class_list":["post-323182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-de-novo-hearing","tag-electronica-trade-mark","tag-form-tm-24-applications","tag-section-45","tag-supreme-court","tag-trade-mark-registry","tag-trade-marks-act-1999"],"yoast_head":"\nSC directs Registry to Expedite applications for subsequent proprietor de novo in Electronica Trade Mark | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-05-29T09:30:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-06-04T04:44:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/\",\"name\":\"SC directs Registry to Expedite applications for subsequent proprietor de novo in Electronica Trade Mark | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-05-29T09:30:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-06-04T04:44:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Electronica Trade Mark\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC directs Registry to Expedite applications for subsequent proprietor de novo in Electronica Trade Mark | SCC Times","description":"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal","og_description":"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-05-29T09:30:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-06-04T04:44:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/","name":"SC directs Registry to Expedite applications for subsequent proprietor de novo in Electronica Trade Mark | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.webp","datePublished":"2024-05-29T09:30:41+00:00","dateModified":"2024-06-04T04:44:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Electronica Trade Mark"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/05\/29\/supreme-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-expedite-reconsideration-electronica-trademark\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"[Electronica Trade Mark] SC upholds Bombay HC order directing Registrar to decide applications for adding subsequent proprietor de novo; Directs for expeditious disposal"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Electronica-Trade-Mark.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":305066,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/10\/17\/delhi-hc-refuses-to-stay-the-registration-for-the-mark-schezwan-chutney-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":323182,"position":0},"title":"Delhi High Court refuses to stay the registration for the mark \u2018SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"October 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThis Court is not inclined to stay the impugned trade mark registration for the mark \u2018SCHEZWAN CHUTNEY\u2019. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction of this Court would have to be considered first.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":300063,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/time-limit-file-counter-statement-notice-of-opposition-run-from-date-e-mail-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":323182,"position":1},"title":"Limitation period to file counter statement to notice of opposition would run from date of receipt of e-mail: Madras High Court","author":"Apoorva","date":"August 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to re-consider and decide the matter on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity to both the parties","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":350789,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/17\/bomhc-quashes-order-rejecting-wr-trade-mark-to-yamaha\/","url_meta":{"origin":323182,"position":2},"title":"Bombay HC quashes order refusing \u2018WR\u2019 trade mark to Yamaha for similarity with Honda\u2019s \u2018WR-V\u2019","author":"Editor","date":"June 17, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Acknowledging the principle of territoriality, prior use in international jurisdictions, the registration obtained for the subject mark \u2018WR\u2019 in such territorial jurisdictions and other relevant materials produced by Yamaha, the Court directed fresh review of the application.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":325658,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/03\/calcutta-hc-directs-senior-examiner-of-trade-mark-to-pass-speaking-order-on-rejection-of-trade-mark-application-for-electronica\/","url_meta":{"origin":323182,"position":3},"title":"Calcutta High Court directs Senior Examiner of Trademark to pass Speaking Order on rejection of Trade Mark Application for “ELECTRONICA”","author":"Editor","date":"July 3, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The hearing in the present matter was concluded on 15-02-2023 and the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks passed the impugned order on 14-02-2024, i.e. after a period of one year.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Calcutta High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Calcutta-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":350599,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/bom-hc-refuse-well-known-mark-status-to-tiktok\/","url_meta":{"origin":323182,"position":4},"title":"No well-known mark status to \u2018TikTok\u2019: Inside Bombay High Court Ruling","author":"Editor","date":"June 13, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The mark \u2018TikTok\u2019 is already a registered trade mark in India and enjoys all statutory protection available under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but its inclusion in the list of well-known marks, will obviously give added protection to a mark.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352720,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/08\/legal-roundup-intellectual-property-right-roundup-june-2025-copyright-infringement-trade-mark-infringement-scc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":323182,"position":5},"title":"INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ROUNDUP: A quick recap of the latest Intellectual Property Rights rulings from June 2025.","author":"Editor","date":"July 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Covering all the important intellectual property rights cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, latest legal updates in intellectual property rights and links to other roundups.","rel":"","context":"In "Legal RoundUp"","block_context":{"text":"Legal RoundUp","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/columns-for-roundup\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Intellectual Property Rights Roundup June 2025","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Intellectual-Property-Rights-Roundup-June-2025.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=323182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/323182\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/323186"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=323182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=323182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=323182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}