Madras High Court
Mahesh Value Products Pvt.Ltd vs Greatway (India) Corporation on 5 February, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N. Anand Venkatesh
1/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-02-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025
Mahesh Value Products Pvt.Ltd
No.68, 4th Floor, C.P.Ramasamy Road,
Alwarpet, chennai-600018
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Greatway (india) Corporation
Basti Sheikh Road, Jalandhar-144002
2.Assistant Registrar Of Trademarks and GI
Office of the Trademarks Registry,
Guindy, Chennai-600032
Respondent(s)
PRAYER Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, praying
to set aside the order dated 29.01.2025, passed by the 2nd Respondent refusing
the registration of the trademark and consequently direct the Respondent to
register the Trademark under No.4748228 in Class 28 by entering the same in
the Register and thereby render justice.
For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Sathish Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.Pushkar for R1
Mr.Subbu Ranga Bharathi for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm )
2/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025
ORDER
This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 29.01.2025, rejecting the application filed by the appellant for registration of the label mark SIXIT after allowing the opposition filed by the 1 st respondent.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3.The case of the appellant is that the appellant had coined the label mark and was using the same honestly and bonafidely from the year 2019 for sports goods. Apart from that, the appellant had registered the same mark with respect to other classes of goods in Class 25.
4.The applicant submitted an application as the proprietor of the trademark SIXIT for registration of the same in Class 28 in respect of games, toys and play things etc. The trademark was advertised in the journal and the 1 st respondent submitted the opposition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 3/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025
5.In the notice of opposition, the 1st respondent stated that they have been using the trademark for more than two decades, since 1997 and they have registered the trademark SIXER in various Classes including Classes 9, 18, 25, 28 and 35. They also took a stand that they are opposing the trademark of the appellant in Class 28. Accordingly, they sought for the rejection of the application.
6.The 2nd respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 29.01.2025, rejected the application by allowing the opposition on the ground that the adoption of the impugned mark by the appellant is questionable and it lacks bonafides, integrity and honesty. Apart from that, the 2 nd respondent also held that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the mark already registered in favour of the 1st respondent for the very same Class of goods viz., Class 28. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.
7.When the appeal came up for hearing on 29.01.2026, this Court after hearing both sides, made a suggestion and asked the learned counsel for the appellant to take instructions from his client as to whether the appellant will be able to add any prefix or suffix to the impugned mark, so that the 1 st respondent may not have any objections.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 4/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025
8.When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted that the appellant has been using this mark from the year 2019 onwards and has gathered sufficient goodwill and reputation and that even if the appellant agrees for the change of the mark, the appellant will have to once again go through the process all over again. Therefore, the appellant is inclined to contest this case on merits. In the light of the above submission, this Court heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
9.It is quite evident from the records that even though the 1st respondent was claiming to be the user of the mark SIXER from the year 1997, what was produced in terms of documents was only from the year 2010. Therefore, it can be safely taken that the 1st respondent was using the mark SIXER atleast from the year 2010 onwards. It is also not in dispute that the appellant started using the mark SIXIT from the year 2019. Hence, the 1 st respondent is the prior user insofar as the mark SIXER is concerned.
10.In the light of the above finding, the next issue to be gone into is as to whether the findings of the 2nd respondent to the effect that there was no bonafides on the part of the appellant in adopting the mark SIXIT and that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 5/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025 mark adopted by the appellant is deceptively similar to that of the mark of the 1st respondent, is sustainable.
11.The materials placed before this Court shows that the appellant has in fact used the impugned mark SIXIT for other class of goods viz., Class 25 and the same has also been registered. Apart from that, the appellant has put to use the very same mark for sports goods from the year 2019 onwards. In the light of these facts, it has to be seen as to whether the finding of the 2 nd respondent to the effect that there was no bonafide on the part of the appellant to use the impugned mark is sustainable. On carefully analysing the impugned mark and the mark that has already been registered in the name of the 1 st respondent, it is seen that the impugned mark is in the nature of a label mark and it has been coined by the appellant, who claims to be the proprietor of the mark. This impugned mark was also used by the appellant for other class of goods and therefore, the appellant was not attempting to use this mark for the first time insofar as Class 28 is concerned. Apart from that, for the very same class of goods viz., Class 28, there are many other registered marks carrying the word SIX either as word mark or label mark. Under such circumstances, the extreme view taken by the 2nd respondent as if there are no bonafides for the appellant to have adopted the mark SIXIT for goods falling under Class 28, is unsustainable and such finding tantamounts to branding the appellant with moral turpitude. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 6/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025 Such an extreme view taken by the 2nd respondent was unwarranted on the facts of the present case and hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with that finding rendered by the 2nd respondent.
12.In the light of the above discussion, what remains to be seen is if the impugned mark adopted by the appellant deceptively and is phonetically similar to the mark that was already registered in favour of the 1 st respondent and whether it is likely to deceive the unwary consumers.
13.It must be kept in mind that the first three letters ‘SIX’ is a common prefix in almost all the marks that have been registered under Class 28. In any case, these three letters constitute a dictionary word ‘SIX’ over which no one can claim any proprietorship.
14.The trademark registered by the 1st respondent is SIXER. On carefully going through the same, it is seen that it is a word mark. What has been adopted by the appellant is a mark SIXIT, which is not a dictionary word and it is a coined word by the appellant, over which the appellant is claiming proprietorship under Section 18 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It must also be borne in mind that unlike SIXIT, which is a coined word, SIXER is a dictionary word. The materials available before this Court, which are contained https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 7/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025 at Pages 362 and 363 of the Paper book, gives the particulars of all those marks which have been registered with the prefix ‘SIX”. One of the mark that is available in Application No.4115377 is “SIXBY” which is also a coined word like that of the impugned mark adopted by the appellant and which is again a coined word SIXIT.
15.It was submitted that the impugned mark is phonetically similar to the word mark registered in favour of the 1 st respondent. This Court is not able to agree with this contention. This is in view of the fact that already a mark has been registered in the name of SIXBY. for the very same Class 28 and if the impugned mark is held to be phonetically similar, the mark which has already been registered will also be vitiated on the same ground. Therefore, the said ground raised on the side of the 1st respondent is liable to be rejected.
16.As between the word mark of the 1st respondent SIXER and the label mark which is a coined word of the appellant SIXIT, this court does not find anything deceptively similar which will lead to confusion of the unwary consumers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 8/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025
17.On a careful reading of the order passed by the 2 nd respondent, it is seen that the 2nd respondent came to such a conclusion since what was looming large in the mind of the 2 nd respondent was the bonafides of the appellant in adopting the impugned mark. Therefore, as an incidental finding, the 2 nd respondent has also held that the impugned mark is deceptively similar and that was added as one more ground to reject the application submitted by the appellant by allowing the opposition submitted by the 1st respondent.
18.In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds that the word mark SIXER is not phonetically similar to the coined word label mark SIXIT of the appellant and the impugned mark adopted by the appellant also does not suffer from lack of bonafides. Consequently, the discretion exercised by the 2 nd respondent under Section 18(4) is found to be perverse and the same requires the interference of this Court.
19.In the result, the impugned proceedings of the 2 nd respondent dated 29.01.2025, is hereby quashed and there shall be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to register the trademark under No.4748228 in Class 28 by entering the same in the Register.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 9/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025
20.Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. No Costs.
05-02-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No ssr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 10/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025 To
1.Greatway (India) Corporation Basti Sheikh Road, Jalandhar-144002
2.Assistant Registrar of Trademarks & GI Office of the Trademarks Registry, Guindy, Chennai-600032.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm ) 11/11 CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025 N.ANAND VENKATESH J.
ssr CMA(TM) No. 10 of 2025 05-02-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 01:07:43 pm )