Madras High Court affirms that any person who has opposed a trade mark application must be impleaded as respondent in writ petitions challenging registration, upholding existing practice in IP writ jurisdiction and providing binding authority for registry amendments.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WMP(IPD) No. 24 of 2025 in WP(IPD) No. 33 of 2025 of Vinaitheerthagounder Jaundice Treatment Pvt Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks |
| CNR | HCMA011551572025 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single-Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on impleadment of opposers |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing practice |
| Questions of Law | Whether a person who has opposed a trade mark application is a necessary party to writ proceedings challenging that application |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought to implead Shanthi Sivakumar, who had opposed Trade Mark Application No. 4163959, as the 2nd respondent in WP(IPD) No. 33 of 2025. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirmed that an opposer in trademark opposition proceedings must be joined as a respondent in any writ petition attacking the application.
- Registry is under a binding direction to amend petitions and implead the opposer by a specified deadline to ensure effective adjudication.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s writ sought relief against a trade mark application; an individual had filed the application and Shanthi Sivakumar opposed it.
- Opposers have a direct interest and are necessary parties to avoid prejudice and ensure complete resolution.
- Exercising powers under Article 226, the court directed amendment of the petition to implead the opposer.
- Deadlines were imposed on the registry and petitioner for amendment and service, ensuring procedural compliance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The writ challenged Trade Mark Application No. 4163959 filed by an individual.
- Shanthi Sivakumar, having opposed the application, is a necessary party for effective adjudication.
Proposed Respondent (Shanthi Sivakumar)
- Confirmed that she opposed the trade mark application.
- Submitted that impleadment is required since the application was filed by an individual and she has a direct interest.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed WP(IPD) No. 33 of 2025 challenging Trade Mark Application No. 4163959, which had been opposed by Shanthi Sivakumar. To ensure effective adjudication, the petitioner moved in WMP(IPD) No. 24 of 2025 for directions to implead Shanthi Sivakumar as the 2nd respondent. The High Court heard submissions on necessary parties and granted the petition, directing registry amendments and service.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing practice requiring impleadment of opposers is affirmed.