- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
Madras High Court denies ‘Thufan’ mark to electric fan creator
Madras High Court denies ‘Thufan’ mark to electric fan creator
A partner at Ira Law applauds the decision based on sound reasoning
The Madras High Court has negated trademark registrations for Thufan in Tamil and Telugu by an electric fan manufacturer, as it violated Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002.
The registrations were challenged by an industry rival, stating that its mark Toofan was registered earlier than Thufan, in English.
Commenting on the matter, Kruttika Vijay, a partner at Ira Law in New Delhi, said, “It is important to appreciate the intent underlying the inclusion of Rule 33 of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. It requires the translation or transliteration of a mark where it is not in English or Hindi to enable third parties to search the Trade Marks Register and allow the Trade Marks Registry to examine the application.”
English is commonly spoken in India, while Hindi is the most widely spoken Indian language.
She added, “The decision of the High Court of Madras appears to be based on sound reasoning. Accordingly, treating Rule 33 as a mandatory provision is logical. The court’s inference that the applicant’s failure to provide a translation or transliteration may have been intentional is aimed at avoiding scrutiny and securing registration. It appears to be a reasonable conclusion.”



