Madras High Court reinstates Sakthi Masala trademark

The Madras High Court recently set aside the Trade Marks Registry's cancellation of the Sakthi Masala trademark [Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.].

Justice N Anand Venkatesh ruled that the Registry acted arbitrarily and unfairly by cancelling a decades-old registration without giving the company any notice.

The Court noted that Sakthi Trading Company had been using the 'SAKTHI' brand since 1977 for a wide range of food products. They had secured official trademark registration in 2005, which was renewed regularly.

Despite this long-standing use, the Trade Marks Registry canceled the registration without giving the company any notice and later listed the application as abandoned following a public notice in 2023.

The Court said this series of actions ignored the company’s right to be heard and had no legal basis.

“The entire procedure followed by the 1st respondent (Trade Marks Registry) smacks with arbitrariness and it is in utter violation of principles of natural justice. In view of the same, the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 09.05.2025 is set aside and there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent (Trade Marks Registry) to reinstate the registration granted to the appellant,” said the Court.

The Court passed the ruling on an appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Sakthi Trading Company (appellant/ company) which manufactures and sells spice and masala powders, cereals, pickles, edible oil, flour and papad under the brand name Sakthi Masala. The appeal challenged the Trade Marks Registry's decision to cancel the appellant's Sakthi Masala trademark.

Allowing the appeal, the Court has directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to reinstate the company’s 2005 registration within four weeks.

The dispute arose after a public notice issued by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks in February 2023 listed certain trademark applications as abandoned for failing to file a counter-statement to oppositions.

The appellant said their trademark application was listed in the notice, and that the registration certificate issued in 2005 had been cancelled without giving them any prior notice.

The Trademark Registry's move was earlier challenged before the Delhi High Court, where a petition was filed against the public notices issued in February and March 2023.

During the hearings, the government assured the court that the notices would be withdrawn within 10 days and that all affected applications, including Sakthi’s, would be restored.

The Delhi High Court had disposed of the petition after recording this assurance.

Despite this, the Trade Marks Registry proceeded to cancel the registration and treat the application as abandoned in May 2025.

“The first respondent (Trade Marks Registry) ought not to have proceeded further to pass the impugned order to the effect that the appellant has abandoned the application after having taken a stand that the public notices dated 06.02.2023 and 27.03.2023 are going to be withdrawn within 10 days before the Delhi High Court. If those public notices are withdrawn, there is no question of entertaining an opposition and calling upon the appellant to file this counter," the Court observed.

The Court emphasised that once a trademark registration certificate is granted and renewed, it cannot be canceled unilaterally. Any party aggrieved by the registration must approach the Registry for a rectification, which is a formal legal process to correct or challenge a registration.

The Sakthi Trading Company was represented by advocate S Diwakar.

Senior Panel Counsel C Samivel represented he Trade Marks Registry.

Kumar Food Industries Limited were represented by advocate MK Miglani.

[Read Order]