Micro Labs Keeps “CORTIL” Mark After Madras HC Rejects Corona Remedies’ Removal Bid, Citing Sales Invoices From 2005–2025

In brief

The question

Whether Micro Labs’ alleged non-use of “CORTIL” justified rectification under Sections 47 and 57 of the Act.

The court held

The Court held that the grounds advanced did not warrant rectification of Micro Labs’ “CORTIL” registration.

It also directed

The original petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

Corona Remedies Limited sought rectification under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal or restriction of Micro Labs Private Limited’s registered Class 5 mark “CORTIL” (Application No. 416090).

pp. 2–5

Corona alleged, among other things, that Micro Labs had claimed an unduly broad specification of pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations despite using the mark for only a limited product, and that the mark had not been continuously used.

pp. 2–5

It also challenged Micro Labs’ adoption and user claims.

pp. 2–5

Micro Labs denied the allegations and relied on registration and renewal records, product materials, and tax invoices said to evidence use from 2005 through 2025.

pp. 7–11

The Court considered the petitioner’s submissions and the materials on record.

p. 11

02Issues

i.Whether Micro Labs’ alleged non-use of “CORTIL” justified rectification under Sections 47 and 57 of the Act.

pp. 5–7, 12–13

ii.Whether the claimed breadth of the registered goods, compared with the goods for which Micro Labs used the mark, provided a ground to remove or restrict the registration.

pp. 5–6, 12–13

03Law Applied

The petitioner invoked Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as a basis for removal of a registered mark on grounds including non-use, and Section 57 as the basis for rectification of the register.

pp. 5–7

The Court’s operative approach was that the asserted grounds did not justify rectification where the record substantiated continuing use of the mark.

pp. 12–13

The petitioner also relied on *Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.*, *Suresh Kumar Jain v. Union of India*, *Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Cian Healthcare Ltd.*, and *Shri Adepu Surrender v. Adepu Ramaiah Narayana & Co.*; the Court held those authorities inapplicable to the facts.

p. 12

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 47 Section 57

04Reasoning

The Court found that Micro Labs had manufactured and marketed products under “CORTIL” and had obtained registration in Class 5.

p. 13

It relied on tax invoices in the record, extending from 2005 to 2025, which showed dealings in products under “CORTIL” and its variants and therefore substantiated continued use.

p. 13

On that evidence, the Court concluded that the asserted non-use ground was not made out and that the petitioner’s cited authorities did not alter the result.

pp. 12–13

It consequently found no basis for rectification under Section 57.

pp. 12–13