Facts of the Case

M. Raja Mohamed had sought restoration of his trademark "RAJA SUPARI" (Trade Mark Application No.364535) to the register, by way of a representation dated 14.03.2017 addressed to the Registrar of Trade Marks, whose office is located on GST Road (the common name for the Grand Southern Trunk Road) in Guindy, Chennai — a street address that has no connection to the Goods and Services Tax. This writ petition, filed in 2017 seeking a mandamus to consider that representation, remained pending until 2023. When the matter was listed "for dismissal," there was no appearance for the petitioner.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether, despite the petitioner's absence, the Registrar of Trade Marks should be directed to decide the pending 2017 representation for restoration of the trademark.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • None argued at the final hearing, as there was no appearance for the petitioner; the writ petition itself sought a direction to the Registrar to consider the 14.03.2017 representation and restore the "RAJA SUPARI" mark within a stipulated time.

Respondent's Arguments

  • None recorded as actively opposing — the Standing Counsel appeared, but the order records no specific opposition on merits.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court, without expressing any view on the merits of the restoration claim, directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.03.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after affording a hearing, within twelve weeks.
  • The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

This case has no connection to GST whatsoever — "GST Road" here is simply the address of the Trademarks Registry office in Guindy, Chennai, coincidentally sharing an acronym with the Goods and Services Tax. It is included in this note purely to correct any mis-indexing that might otherwise associate this order with GST law.

Sections Involved

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999 — restoration of a removed trademark
  • Constitution of India — Article 226 (writ of mandamus)

Decision – In Favour of

Neither party on merits — the Registrar was directed to decide the pending representation; no ruling on the restoration claim itself.

Case Details

  • Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
  • Case: WP(MD) No.8336 of 2017
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Pugalendhi
  • Date: 16.06.2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.