Madras High Court Upholds Refusal To Register INEXO's FEDEXO Mark Over FedEx's Well-Known Trade Mark

The Madras High Court has upheld the refusal to register “FEDEXO” as a trade mark for INEXO Cast Metal Solutions Pvt Ltd, holding that FedEx's mark had acquired well-known status in India before INEXO applied in 2009.

The Court said FedEx's inclusion in the Trade Marks Registry's list of well-known marks in February 2024 recorded that status and was not the sole basis for its finding.

Justice A.D. Maria Clete dismissed INEXO's appeal on October 15, 2026.

INEXO applied to register “FEDEXO” in November 2009 in Class 1 for chemical products used in the foundry industry, claiming use since September 5, 2007.

Federal Express Corporation, the owner of the FEDEX mark, opposed the application in 2013. In October 2024, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the opposition and refused registration. INEXO then appealed.

The Court found that FEDEXO incorporates FEDEX in its entirety, with only the letter “O” added. It held that the resemblance required no elaborate phonetic analysis.

It also noted that INEXO's managing director had described the modification as an “insignificant change”.

On the timing of FedEx's recognition as a well-known mark, the Court held that “the date of formal recognition does not necessarily determine when a mark acquired the requisite reputation.”

FedEx's use in India since 1984, Indian registrations dating to 1986, Reader's Digest Asia Trusted Brands awards from 2004 based on surveys including India, substantial worldwide turnover and foreign decisions between 1991 and 2007 established its well-known status before November 2009.

The Court also rejected INEXO's argument that the parties operated in different fields. The dissimilarity of goods, it said, “far from excluding Section 11(2), is a circumstance expressly contemplated by that provision, which extends protection to well-known marks beyond their registered goods or services.”

It held that using FEDEXO without due cause would take unfair advantage of FedEx's reputation and weaken the mark's distinctive association with the company. Proof of actual confusion is not an essential requirement under Section 11(2).

The Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the refusal to register FEDEXO. It clarified that its findings were confined to INEXO's entitlement to registration and did not determine any independent question of infringement or passing off.