Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Appolo Industries Limited vs Registrar Of Trademarks on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CIA/8/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8 of 2024
==========================================================
GUJARAT APPOLO INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Versus
REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.CHANAKYA BHAVSAR(6316) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS ANJASI P SHAH(12257) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DISHA K KHILOSIA(10650) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
SWATI B SINGHAL(9123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS VYOMA K JHAVERI(6386) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This appeal under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 is filed challenging the order dated 12.09.2023 passed by the Trademark Registry in application No. 5234377.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chanakya Bhavsar for the appellant. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that appellant herein made an application before Registry of Trademark for Trademark 'Apollo' in Class-7 and as per the order dated 12.09.2023 the same was examined on 05.01.2023 and thereafter the order dated 12.09.2023 was passed wherein it is recorded as under:-
"Heard learned advocate, Reply Perused and same not found satisfactory as objection Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:12:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CIA/8/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined raised in the examination report is valid and and justified. Similar, valid marks with same classification of goods vide application no. 4460435 is already on record. Likelihood of confusion arises as prominent mark in applied application is "Apollo" and in cited it is also "APOLLO" therefore public at large will be confused on the basis of above considerations. Applied application is claiming user since 02/01/2015 however applicant failed to produce the proper / sufficient proof of the user claimed. Cited mark is filed dated 2/03/2020 and user since 18-04-2008 the mark is registered and valid. Even the date of application is prior from the applied application. Hence keeping in view the above facts objection under Section (11) sustained. Trademark application is accordingly refused under Section 18(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999."
2.1 Therefore, it is evident that the trademark sought by the appellant was rejected on the ground of having mark with the same classification of goods vide application No. 4460435. Learned advocate submitted that since the said mark referred vide application No. 4460435 is one of the family members of the appellant, the said family member gave a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) and accordingly an additional affidavit dated 27.04.2024 is filed. The said affidavit records NOC granted by the applicant having Application No. 4460435 having the trademark 'Apollo' in the same classification.
2.2 In view of the affidavit and the NOC granted by the Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:12:45 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/CIA/8/2024 ORDER DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined applicant having Application No. 4460435 the refusal of the application to the appellant vide order dated 12.09.2023 would not survive and accordingly, the Registrar of the Trademark may be directed to consider the application afresh.
3. Considering the submissions, it is noticed that the application of the appellant was rejected by Registrar of Trademark vide order dated 12.09.2023 on the ground of having similar trademark which was earlier granted vide Application No. 4460435. However, in view of the affidavit and the NOC granted by the applicant of Application No. 4460435 in the opinion of this Court, the sole ground of rejection of application of the applicant would not survive and accordingly, the order dated 12.09.2023 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Registrar of Trademark is directed to consider the application of the applicant afresh keeping in mind the additional affidavit filed by the appellant as also the NOC granted by the applicant of Application No. 4460435.
4. With the above, present application is disposed of.
(MAUNA M. BHATT,J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by SHRIJIT PILLAI(HC01400) on Fri Sep 26 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 27 03:12:45 IST 2025