Madras HC Orders Tobacco Mark Advertised, Citing Registry’s Earlier Acceptance Of Applicant’s ‘TT Seval’ Reply To The Same Cited Marks

The appellant applied to register the label mark “Tamilnadu Tobacco TT Madras” with a rooster device in Class 34 for tobacco and tobacco substitutes.

The Trade Marks Registry raised an objection under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, relying on two cited marks, and refused the application by order dated 23 December 2025, despite the appellant’s response and written submissions.

The appellant argued that the Registry had previously accepted its explanation to the same cited marks in relation to an earlier “TT SEVAL” mark and had allowed that mark to proceed to publication and registration.

The Registry maintained that the cited marks were registered and that the applied-for mark was likely to cause confusion.

Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerns refusal of registration where a mark conflicts with an earlier mark, including where the similarity of marks and goods or services creates a likelihood of confusion.

The Court stated that the applied-for mark must be assessed as a whole and that directing publication at the initial stage would not, by itself, seriously prejudice a registered owner, since interested persons may raise objections after advertisement.

The Court also referred to “Ramesh Bishnoi v. The Registrar of Trade Marks”, CMA(TM) No. 13 of 2026, order dated 30 October 2026, in which it had dealt with the same issue.

The Court considered that the same cited marks and substantially the same objection had been raised against the appellant’s earlier “TT SEVAL” application, but the Registry had accepted the appellant’s explanation and allowed that mark to proceed.

In the Court’s view, the Registry had given no sufficient reason to adopt a different approach in the present application.

It further held that the applied-for mark should be considered holistically and that publication would not determine the ultimate question of registrability or deprive registered owners of the opportunity to object.

It directed the Registrar to advertise the application in the Trade Marks Journal within four weeks of receiving the judgment and thereafter dispose of it in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.