'HANUMAN' vs. 'JAI HANUMAN': Madras High Court Rules In Favor Of S.A.S. Refineries
'HANUMAN' vs. 'JAI HANUMAN': Madras High Court Rules In Favor Of S.A.S. Refineries
Introduction
The Madras High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Raghuvar (India) Limited against the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to allow the trademark 'JAI HANUMAN' by S.A.S. Refineries. The appeal was dismissed due to lack of territorial use evidence of Raghuvar's mark 'HANUMAN' in South India.
Factual Background
Raghuvar (India) Limited claimed to have used the trademark 'HANUMAN' for edible oil vanaspathi since 1966. S.A.S. Refineries filed an application for the trademark 'JAI HANUMAN' in Class 29 for edible oils, which was opposed by Raghuvar. However, the opposition was rejected by the Registrar of Trademarks.
Procedural Background
The Registrar of Trademarks rejected Raghuvar's opposition on two grounds:
1. The assignment from Rohtas Industries Limited to Raghuvar had not been recorded in the records of the Trade Marks Registry.
2. Raghuvar failed to produce evidence of use of its mark 'HANUMAN' in the southern states of India.
Issues Involved
1. Territorial Use: Whether Raghuvar had sufficient territorial use of its mark 'HANUMAN' in South India to oppose S.A.S. Refineries' application for 'JAI HANUMAN'.
2. Assignment of Trademark: Whether the assignment from Rohtas Industries Limited to Raghuvar was properly recorded with the Trade Marks Registry.
Contentions of the Parties
Raghuvar's Contentions: Raghuvar argued that an application for registration of the assignment deed was pending with the Trade Marks Registry and that its prior usage of the mark across the country should be considered.
S.A.S. Refineries' Contentions: S.A.S. Refineries' application for 'JAI HANUMAN' was supported by the Registrar of Trademarks due to Raghuvar's lack of evidence of use in South India.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Madras High Court examined the documents placed on record by Raghuvar and observed that no evidence of use of its mark in any of the South Indian states was submitted. The Court concluded that no interference with the Order was warranted, emphasizing the importance of proving regional use during opposition proceedings.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed with no costs, upholding the Registrar of Trademarks' decision to allow the trademark 'JAI HANUMAN' by S.A.S. Refineries.
Implications
This decision reinforces the principle that evidence of actual territorial use is necessary for successful opposition. It highlights the importance of maintaining records of trademark use in specific regions to support opposition claims.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. R Sathish Kumar and Ms. Mehavarshini M.R, Advocates.
