CORONA REMEDIES LIMITED vs MICRO LABS PRIVATE LIMITED

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON
PRONOUNCED ON
07.07.2026
04.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
OP(TM) No. 66 of 2024
Corona Remedies Limited(formerly known as
Corona Remedies Private Limited)
Rep by its authorised signatory Venu Samudrala,
Corona House, Block C Mondeal Business Park,
Near Gurudwara S.G. Highway, Thaltej
Ahmedabad - 380 059, Gujarat State, India.
(Amended as per order of this Hon' ble Court
dated 08/07/2025 made in (TM)A.NO.59 of 2025
in OP (TM) 66 of 2024)
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Micro Labs Private Limited,
423, Kilpauk Garden Road, Madras 600010.
2. The Registrar Of Trademarks,
Office of the Trade Marks Registry,
IPR Buildings, Industrial Estate SIDCO RMD,
G.S.T Road, Guindy,
Chennai-600032
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: To rectify the trade marks register by wholly removing, expunging
and/or cancelling the trade mark of the first respondent which has been granted
registration by the second respondent, that stands registered under the
application No.416090 is class 5 or alternatively remove, expunge and/or cancel
the trade mark of the 1st respondent which has been granted registration by the
second respondent in respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparation
except the goods hormones/hormone analogues available in tablet form having
__________
Page 1 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
ingredient carbidopa and levodopa, that stands Registered under the Application
No.416090 in Class 5 and pass such further or other orders.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vikas Khera
For Respondent(s): No Appearance
ORDER
The present original petition has been filed seeking to rectify the Trade
Marks Register by wholly removing, expunging and/or cancelling the trade
mark of the first respondent which has been granted registration by the second
respondent, that stands registered under the application No.416090 is class 5 or
alternatively remove, expunge and/or cancel the trade mark of the first
respondent which has been granted registration by the second respondent in
respect of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparation except the goods
hormones/hormone analogues available in tablet form having ingredient
carbidopa and levodopa, that stands Registered under the Application
No.416090 in Class 5.
2.Heard Mr.Vikas Khera learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.
3.Mr.Vikas Khera learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner is a top Pharmaceutical company which was
registered under the Registration No.44656 under the Companies Act, 1956. He
__________
Page 2 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
submits that the petitioner has been engaged in the business of manufacturing
and marketing of the interalia Pharmaceuticals and Medicinal Preparations and
had established their own manufacturing plant in Solan, Himachal Pradesh. The
learned counsel submits that the petitioner manufactures and markets their
products under various, famous and distinctive trademarks throughout the
country and one such Trademark is the Trademark “CORTEL”. He submits
that the Petitioner bonafide adopted the Trademark “ CORTEL ” in respect of
TELMISARTAN, for use in the treatment of hypertension and cardiovascular
diseases on 18.10.2007 and the same has been continuously, uninterruptedly
and voluminously used by the Petitioner from the date of its adoption.
4. The learned counsel submits that the Trademark “ CORTEL ” is coined
by combining a part of Petitioner’s company name with the content of the
goods/products viz., the first half of the Trademark, the word ‘ COR ’ is taken
from the Petitioner Company’s name ( COR ONA) and the second half word
‘ TEL ’ is taken from the content of the goods ( TEL MISARTAN), which
thereby substantiates that the Petitioner’s trademark “ CORTEL ” is an invented
one. It is submitted that the Petitioner has manufactured, marketed and sold its
products under the Trademark “ CORTEL ” in compliance with international
standards along with the requisite certifications and approvals from the
concerned authorities, and has applied for registration of the said Trademark
and its variants under Classes 5 and 35 to protect its statutory rights.
__________
Page 3 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
Subsequently the first respondent herein also being a Pharmaceutical Company,
having the registered Trademark “ CORTIL ” under Application No.416090,
had filed two oppositions in Opposition Nos.749794 and 979561 against the
Petitioner’s marks “ CORTEL 20 ” and “ CORTEL ” bearing Application Nos.
1685329 and 3157244 respectively under Class 5. Consequent to the opposition
filed by the first respondent, the learned Registrar refused the Application No.
1685329 with regard to the Petitioner’s mark “ CORTEL 20 ” against which the
petitioner has preferred an appeal against the same in the before the High Court
of Ahmedabad which is pending adjudication.
5. The learned counsel vehemently contends that the first respondent
fraudulently misled the Trade Marks Registry by furnishing false adoption and
user details for the impugned Trademark “ CORTIL ”. He relies upon Form TM-
1,submitted by the first respondent, wherein the date of use is stated as in the
year 1976, whereas, in Opposition No.979561 filed against the Petitioner’s
Trademark “ CORTEL ” under Application No. 3157244 in Class 5, the first
respondent claimed the use of the said impugned mark only from July, 1988,
thereby substantiating the falsity of its claim. He further submits that the
impugned Trademark “ CORTIL ” was registered in association with another
Application No. 383601 in Class 5 for the mark “ CORTID ”, which does not
belong to the first respondent. Hence, he contends that the first respondent made
a false declaration regarding the ownership of the Trademark supra “ CORTID ”
__________
Page 4 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
and thereby fraudulently obtained registration of the impugned Trademark
“ CORTIL ”. Therefore, the impugned Trademark “ CORTIL ” registered under
Application No. 416090 in Class 5, is liable to be removed from the Register
under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as
‘Act’).
6. He further submits that the first respondent applied for registration
covering a wide description of goods, namely Pharmaceutical and medicinal
preparation, though the impugned Trademark is not used for the entire spectrum
thereof. He points out that in Opposition No. 97956, the first respondent itself
stated that the Trademark “ CORTIL ” was adopted and used only in respect of
Hormones/Hormone Analogues and same is available in tablet form and the
ingredients are carbidopa and levodopa, thereby contradicting the broader claim
made before the Trade Marks Registry. It is submitted that the above
contradiction evinces that the first respondent has malafidely misled the learned
Trade Marks Registry by claiming use of the impugned Trademark for the wide
description of goods, whereas it has been using the said Trademark only in
respect of Hormones/Hormone Analogues, as stated supra . He submits that the
impugned Trademark “ CORTIL ” has no bonafide use in respect of the goods
claimed therein. Hence, the Petitioner, being an aggrieved person within the
meaning of Sections 47 and 57 of the Act, seeks rectification of the impugned
Trademark “ CORTIL ”, registered under Application No.416090 in Class 5,
__________
Page 5 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
under Section 47 of the Act.
7. The learned Counsel further submits that the impugned Trademark
“ CORTIL ” of the first respondent has no commercial presence and has not
been used for more than five years and three months, attracting Section 47 of
the Act. He contends that the mark was registered without bonafide intention to
use it in relation to the goods and services for which it was registered and, there
being no bonafide use for a continuous period exceeding five years the
impugned Trademark is liable to be rectified. He further submits that removal of
the impugned trademark “CORTIL” is necessary to maintain the purity of the
Register. He contends that the Petitioner’s Trademark “ CORTEL ” is a reputed
mark, having acquired recognition among the relevant public through its
extensive and continuous use since 2007 and that the registration of the
impugned Trademark, which is in grave contravention of the provisions of the
Act and has caused substantial prejudice and loss to the Petitioner. Hence, he
prays that the impugned Trademark “ CORTIL ”, registered under Application
No. 416090 in Class 5, to be removed by the Registrar, the second respondent
herein, from the Trademarks Register.
8. On the other hand The first respondent company in its counter
statement, submitted that the first respondent is a private limited company,
__________
Page 6 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
which is well known reputed manufacturer of Pharmaceutical products having
more than 12 divisions. It is submitted that the first respondent company is
using the impugned trademark “ CORTIL ” since 1976 and applied for the
registration of the said Trademark vide application on 16.01.1984 and same was
granted on 15.11.1988. It is submitted that the aforesaid trademark has been
duly renewed from time to time and has remained valid and subsisting
throughout the relevant period. At present, the impugned trademark is valid for
a further period of ten years from the date of its last renewal, viz., 16.01.2025.
Accordingly, the registration of the First respondent’s trademark, “ CORTIL ”
has remained in full force and effect, thereby conferring upon the First
respondent the exclusive statutory right to use the impugned trademark in
respect of the goods for which it is registered and to restrain any unauthorised
use of identical or deceptively similar marks by third parties. It is averred that
the impugned Trademark has been extensively used and sold, and that the first
respondent has placed on record materials evidencing the reference to and use
of the said Trademark from around 1979, along with sales records for the period
from 2006 to 2007 and continuing till 15.01.2025. It is further submitted that the
impugned Trademark “ CORTIL ” registered in Class 5, is a Pharmaceutical and
Medicinal Preparation containing Betamethasone IP and that the first
respondent has launched various extensions and variants thereof, including
“ CORTIL A ”, “ CORTIL D ”, etc.
__________
Page 7 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
9. It is contented that the Petitioner has not satisfied the ingredients of
Section 47 and 57 of the Act, therefore the petitioner cannot invoke said
sections to rectify the impugned trademark of the first respondent. It has been
averred that at the time of granting registration of the impugned trademark there
was no condition imposed, therefore no question arises of the contravention or
failure to observe certain conditions to register the Trademark in India. It is
submitted that, although the impugned trademark “ CORTIL ” was first
registered in the year 1984, the first respondent has been using the said mark
since 1976 under Class 5 in respect of the Pharmaceutical and Medicinal
Preparations and the said mark has been in continuous use since then. It is
averred that the first respondent’s first declaration with regard to the use of the
said trademark “CORTIL” was made on 1979, however, the market study,
brand search and discussions regarding the feasibility of adopting and using the
said mark commenced from 1976. Accordingly, the first respondent claims use
of the said Trademark since 1976 and has specifically denied the allegations
made by the Petitioner.
10. It is further submitted that the first respondent’s product is widely
available in the market in tablet form and is a synthetic hormone analogue drug.
The first respondent denies claims that the impugned mark “ CORTEL ” of the
petitioner, has been adopted in an honest manner and has been allegedly
__________
Page 8 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
combining the petitioner’s company name with its salt composition, viz.,
( COR ONA + TEL MISARTAN= CORTEL) . The first respondent asserts that
petitioner’s mark “CORTEL” is phonetically, structurally and visually close
and deceptively similar to the registered mark of the first respondent
“CORTIL” , wherein the petitioner has only replaced the letters “I” with “E” to
obtain the impugned mark “ CORTEL ”. Neither the mere addition nor
alteration of a letter is sufficient to distinguish the impugned mark from the
Petitioner’s mark, nor does such an act, by itself, amount to “coining” a new
Trademark. The first respondent further avers that petitioner’s trade is akin to
that of the first respondent’s trade and in spite of having a complete knowledge
of the first respondent’s registered Trademark, the petitioner has deliberately
tried to register a mark deceptively similar to that of the first respondent’s mark
which is likely to create confusion in the minds of the consumers.
11. The first Respondent further denies the Petitioner’s allegation that it
fraudulently obtained registration of the Trademark “ CORTIL” in association
with Application No. 383601 in Class 5 for the Trademark “ CORTID ”, which
allegedly does not belong to the first Respondent and thereby contends that the
said allegation is false, as Form TM-1 dated 10.01.1984 produced by the first
Respondent does not refer to the aforesaid Trademark Application or the
Trademark anywhere therein. It is submitted that the petitioner is not a
__________
Page 9 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
proprietor of the impugned trademark “ CORTEL ” in class 5. It is submitted
that, having failed to secure registration of the mark “ CORTEL” in Class 5, the
Petitioner obtained registration of the mark “CORTEL ” in Classes 29 and 30
under Application Nos. 4940661 and 4940756, respectively, which do not cover
Pharmaceutical and Medicinal products. The goods covered by the Petitioner’s
applications are wholly unrelated to the purpose for which the petitioner’s mark
was allegedly coined, namely, the molecule of TELMISARTAN. This conduct
clearly demonstrates the Petitioner’s malafide intent. Thereby establishing the
malafide intent of the petitioner to secure the registration of the deceptively
similar mark “ CORTEL ” by the petitioner.
12. Further the first respondent denies the allegation of the trademark
“ CORTIL ” Application No.416090 in class 5 of not being bonafide and the
first respondent had malafidely registered its trademark “ CORTIL ” with the
description Pharmaceutical and Medicinal Preparation, whereas the first
respondent has claimed that it has been using the impugned mark “ CORTIL ” in
respect of Harmones/Harmone Analogues and the same is available in tablet
form and the ingredient are a carbidopa and levodopa, thereby the impugned
mark of “ CORTIL ” is liable to be removed with respect to the section 47 of the
Act. It is submitted that the first respondent’s trademark “ CORTIL ” is
registered under the Application No.416090 in class 5, wherein the Class 5 of
__________
Page 10 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
the includes a wide description which is inclusive of Pharmaceutical and
Medicinal to which the first respondent has restricted its impugned mark. It is
submitted that Hormones/Hormone Analogues comes under the ambit of the of
Pharmaceutical and Medicinal product.
13. It is asserted that the first respondent has documents evidencing the
usage of its mark “ CORTIL ” from the year 1979 including the last 5 years and
same can be established by the way of CA certificate, tax invoices from the year
of 2005 to till date. It is further asserted that the first respondent has been
making commercial usage of its trademark “ CORTIL ” continuously and
extensively and therefore the claim of non-usage under the section 47 of the Act
is just a ruse to get the deceptively similar trademark “ CORTEL ” of the
petitioner to get registered. Hence the first respondent asserted that it is the
bonafide user of the impugned trademark “ CORTIL ” and has registered the
said trademark lawfully and has taken reasonably steps to protect the right of its
registered trademark. It is submitted that the petitioner, in an attempt to adopt
and register a trademark deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the
first respondent, has filed the present frivolous petition. Accordingly, the first
respondent seeks dismissal of the petition.
14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the materials available on
__________
Page 11 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
record.
15. The primordial contention of the learned petitioner counsel with
regard to the rectification of the first respondent’s trademark is that the
respondent had registered its impugned trademark under a class 5, which covers
the wide spectrum of goods. However the first respondent’s impugned
trademark has been used only with respect to a certain good, which contradicts
the first respondent’s claim made in its Trade Mark Application. It is the further
contention of the learned counsel is that the first respondent had not been in the
continuous usage of its impugned trademark, thereby the above grounds attracts
section 47 and 57 of the Act and the impugned mark of the first respondent is
liable to be rectified.
16. In regard to the aforesaid grounds the learned counsel for the
petitioner had also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court made in
the case of Vishnudas Trading Vs Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.Ltd., and Anr
reported in (1997) 4 SCC 201 ; the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court
made in the cases of Suresh Kumar Jain Vs Union of India and Anr reported
in 2012 SCC Online Del 12 and Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. Vs Cian
Healthcare Ltd and Anr., reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 2602 and the
judgment of the learned Intellectual Property Appellate Board IPAB made in
the case of Shri Adepu Surrender v. Adepu Ramaiah Narayana & Co.,
reported in 2012 SCC Online IPAB 60 .
__________
Page 12 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
17. It is pertinent to note that the first respondent had been manufacturing
and marketing its product under its trademark “ CORTIL ” since 1976 and had
obtained the registration for the same in the year 1988. It can be seen that the
product of the first respondent categorically falls under the class 5 and the first
respondent has rightfully registered its product under the same. This court
further notes that the first respondent at present has been in continuous usage of
its impugned trademark “ CORTIL ” and the same stands substantiated by the
copies of tax invoices commencing from 2005 till 2025 found in the typeset
filed by the first respondent along with its Counter Statement. Wherein, it can
be seen that the various products under different trademarks of the first
respondent, including the impugned trademark and its variants, have been dealt
with over the years, clearly evincing the first respondent’s continuous use of the
impugned trademark. In that regard the judgments relied by the learned counsel
for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
18. The aforesaid facts do not attract the provisions of Section 47 of the
Act and consequently, does not provide any grounds for the rectification of the
impugned trademark under Section 57 of the Act. Therefore in view of the
above discussion the impugned Trademark of the first respondent “CORTIL”
does not warrant any rectification.
__________
Page 13 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
19. Accordingly the present Original Petition stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
GBA
To
1. The Registrar Of TrademarksOffice of the
Trade Marks Registry, IPR Buildings, Industrial
Estate SIDCO RMD, G.S.T Road, Guindy,
Chennai.
__________
Page 14 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )

OP(TM) No.66 of 2024
K.KUMARESH BABU J.
GBA
OP(TM) No. 66 of 2024
04-11-2026
__________
Page 15 of15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 03:30:20 pm )