Paul Components Private Limited vs Hi Tech Arai Private Limited on 9 August, 2023
31. In a case where the plaintiff has obtained registration of its
mark improperly and the registration is ex facie objectionable, Mr.
Dayan Krishnan submits that the plaintiff would not be entitled to the
benefit of presumption of validity of the trademark under Section
31(1)3 of the Trademarks Act. For this purpose, he relies on para 158
of the judgment of this Bench in Armasuisse v. Trade Mark Registry4
and paras 13, 14 and 19 of the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench
of this Court in Lowenbrau AG v. Jagpin Breweries Ltd5. Mr. Dayan
Krishnan reiterates the objection, as contained in the reply filed by the
defendant, of the plaint being vitiated by suppression and
misstatement. He submits that the plaintiff has concealed from the
Court the registration obtained for the and marks, both
of which are identifiable with the defendant.