Madras High Court Refuses to Remove ‘Ayyappan Brand’ Trademark, Says Minor Variations Don’t Affect Identity

Madras High Court Refuses to Remove ‘Ayyappan Brand’ Trademark, Says Minor Variations Don’t Affect Identity

Introduction

The Madras High Court dismissed a rectification petition seeking removal of the “Ayyappan Brand” trademark, holding that minor variations in the mark and discrepancies in the user date do not justify removal where the identity of the mark remains intact and continuous use is established.

Factual Background

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries is the registered proprietor of the “Ayyappan Brand” trademark used for rice and related products. The registered mark comprises a pictorial depiction of Lord Ayyappa, a circular ring containing the trading name, and the words “Ayyappan Brand.” Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries challenged the validity of the mark, alleging inconsistency in the user date and contending that the mark had not been used in the form in which it was registered. The respondent, however, relied on invoices spanning from 1993 to 2015 to demonstrate continuous and bona fide use of the mark.

Procedural Background

The rectification plea was filed before the Madras High Court during the pendency of an infringement suit between the parties before the District Court, Bellary. The petitioner sought removal of the trademark under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The matter was heard by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, who delivered the impugned order on March 11, 2026.

Issues

1. Whether discrepancy in the user date of the trademark justified removal from the register.

2. Whether variations in the mark as used amounted to non-use of the registered trademark.

3. Whether grounds for rectification under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act were established.

Contentions of Parties

The petitioner contended that the user date mentioned in the trademark application differed from that published in the Trade Marks Journal and that the respondent had failed to use the mark in its registered form. It argued that such discrepancies indicated misrepresentation and warranted removal of the mark. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that it had been using the mark continuously since the early 1990s and that minor variations in depiction did not alter the essential identity of the trademark.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the discrepancy in the user date, in the absence of evidence of misrepresentation or statutory violation, was insufficient to justify removal of the trademark. It further observed that the evidence on record, including invoices over several years, demonstrated continuous and bona fide use of the mark. Referring to the principles governing use of registered trademarks, the Court noted that minor additions or alterations do not amount to non-use if the essential identity of the mark is preserved. It found that although there were differences in the pictorial depiction and arrangement of elements in the invoices, these variations did not substantially affect the identity of the registered mark. The Court emphasized that rectification is a drastic remedy and must be exercised only when clear statutory grounds are made out, which was not the case here.

Decision

The Madras High Court dismissed the rectification petition, holding that no valid grounds were made out for removal of the “Ayyappan Brand” trademark under Sections 47 or 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates R. Sathish Kumar and Ramji. G.