Madras High Court
M/S.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd vs Mr.Sh.S.Lal Singh on 25 March, 2025
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
(T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
(T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024
(OA SR.485/2015/TM/CHN)
M/s.Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
A-302, Kemp Plaza, Mind Space,
Chincholi Bunder,
Off.Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai-400 064. .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Mr.Sh.S.Lal Singh
Sole Proprietor,
M/s.Public Electricals,
4, Beegum Gulli, AM Lane Cross,
Chickpet, Bangalore-560 053.
2. M/s.The Registrar of Trade Marks,
Intellectual Property Rights Buildings,
Industrial Estate,
SIDCO RMD, Godown Area,
G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. .. Respondents
Prayer: This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Trademarks) under
Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, prayed that (a) The finding in
the impugned order dated 02.09.2015 passed by Deputy Registrar of
Trade Marks, Chennai (Respondent No.2) be reversed only to the effect
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 05:47:48 pm )
1/6
(T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024
that the trade marks 'GOLDMEDAL' and 'SILVERMEDAL' are highly
deceptively similar to each other; (b) to summon and call for the con
cerned record file concerning the opposition matter under No.MAS-
733175 against application No.892522 in Class-09 from the Registrar of
Trade Marks, Chennai and (c) Any other or such further or other neces
sary order or orders or directions be made or given, including adducing
of additional evidence if necessary, as would afford complete relief to the
Appellant.
For Appellant :Mr.Somnath De for
M/s.K.G.Bansal
For Respondents :Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, SPC for R2
R1-No Appearance
(Unserved Notice on 05.11.2024)
ORDER
The appellant had applied for registration of the label mark “GOLDMEDAL CAB” in Class 9 in relation to cables and wires. The first respondent herein lodged opposition No.MAS-733175 on the basis that the said respondent is the prior adopter and user of the trade mark “SILVERMEDAL”. By order dated 02.09.2015, the application was allowed and the opposition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the finding in the order that the trademarks 'GOLDMEDAL' and 'SILVERMEDAL' are different, the present appeal is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 05:47:48 pm ) 2/6 (T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024
2. In spite of substituted service being effected on the first re spondent, the first respondent failed to enter appearance and contest the appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to in voice dated 14.12.1987, which was issued by Bright Electricals, in re spect of the supply of coils bearing the trade mark 'GOLD MEDAL'. Learned counsel submits that Bright Electricals was the predecessor-in
-interest of the appellant. He further submits that evidence that the appel lant was the prior user of the trade mark 'GOLD MEDAL', including the above mentioned invoice, had been placed before the Registrar. In spite of evidence of prior use being placed for consideration, learned counsel submits that a finding has been recorded that there is no likelihood of confusion because the marks are different.
4. He further submits that the appellant filed C.S.(COMM) No.396 of 2020 before the District Judge (Commercial Court-03), New Delhi, and that, by judgment dated 31.03.2022, the suit was decreed in terms of reliefs claimed in paragraphs 19 and 20 thereof. In paragraph 19, he points out that the defendant was restrained by an order of permanent in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 05:47:48 pm ) 3/6 (T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024 junction from using the trade mark SILVER MEDAL in relation to wires and cables and cognate goods.
5. As noticed at the outset, the appeal lies within a narrow compass. The appellant is not aggrieved by the decision in the appeal. Instead, the finding that the relevant trade marks are different is challenged. It should be borne in mind that the order was issued in a trade mark application filed by the appellant and the opposition lodged by the first respondent in relation thereto. The question for consideration before the Registrar was, therefore, whether registration should be refused on relative grounds. While examining the said question, the Registrar rejected the opposition on the ground that the trade marks are different. The first respondent has not challenged the said order.
6. The appellant has placed on record evidence that the trade mark 'GOLDMEDAL' was used by the appellant, albeit through its prede cessor, since December 1987. Prima facie, this appears to be earlier than the first use by the first respondent. The order does not contain any find ing with regard to whether the applicant/appellant herein or the opponent/first respondent herein was the prior user. As noticed earlier, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 05:47:48 pm ) 4/6 (T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024 the Civil Court has decreed the suit filed by the appellant herein on the basis that the trade marks are deceptively similar, and that the appellant is the prior user. In these circumstances, a case is made out to interfere with the finding that the marks are different.
7. For reasons set out above, this appeal is disposed of by recording that the observations in the penultimate paragraph of the order dated 02.09.2015 to the effect that the two trade marks are different will not be binding on the appellant herein in any other proceedings relating to these trade marks. There shall be no order as to costs.
25.03.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
kal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 05:47:48 pm )
5/6
(T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
kal
To
M/s.The Registrar of Trade Marks,
Intellectual Property Rights Buildings,
Industrial Estate,
SIDCO RMD, Godown Area,
G.S.T.Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032.
(T)CMA(TM) No.12 of 2024
(OA SR.485/2015/TM/CHN)
25.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 05:47:48 pm )
6/6