Madras High Court Orders Removal of 'Sugar Pop' Device Mark On Plea By Sugar Cosmetics Brand

The Madras High Court has recently directed the removal of the 'SUGAR POP' device mark from the Register of Trade Marks on a plea by Sugar Brands Pvt. Ltd., holding that it was entered without sufficient cause due to lack of due diligence by the Registrar. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 25, 2026, observed that the Registrar failed to properly search for conflicting marks despite the petitioner's existing registrations, leading to the wrongful entry of the impugned...

Madras High Court Finds Geetham Restaurants Passed Off As Sangeetha For 17 Months, No Trademark Infringement

The Madras High Court has recently held that former franchisees of the Sangeetha restaurant chain were liable for passing off for about 17 months after ending their association but ruled that their use of the name “Geetham” did not amount to trademark infringement.In a judgment pronounced on March 25, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that the defendants had dishonestly adopted a trade dress identical to the plaintiff's iconic red-and-green color scheme to mislead the public...

Madras High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Arbitrator Order Refusing Expert Analysis Of iPad Evidence

The Madras High Court has recently dismissed an appeal challenging an arbitrator's refusal to send an iPad marked as evidence for expert analysis, holding that the appeal filed by ADRPlexus Medical Services Pvt Ltd was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, particularly where the request was made after completion of the claimant's evidence. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that ADRPlexus Medical...

Balance Depreciation Allowed In Subsequent Year For Assets Used Less Than 180 Days: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court on 2 March held that a taxpayer is entitled to claim the balance 50% of additional depreciation in the subsequent assessment year where new plant and machinery are put to use for less than 180 days in the year of acquisition. A Bench of Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Shamim Ahmed allowed an appeal filed by Wheels India Limited against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2007–08, which had upheld the partial disallowance of the...

Madras High Court Temporarily Injuncts 'Freedum' Oil Mark In Dispute With Gemini Edibles' 'Freedom' Brand

The Madras High Court has granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Gemini Edibles and Fats India Ltd., restraining a Kurnool-based trader from using the mark “Freedum” for edible oils.In an order dated March 16, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the applicant had established a prima facie case showing the rival trader had adopted a mark deceptively similar to Gemini's registered trademark for identical products. The court observed that such intervention was necessary after...

Madras High Court Refuses To Remove 'Ayyappan Brand' Trademark, Says Minor Variations In Mark Do Not Affect Identity

The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries seeking removal of the trademark “Ayyappan Brand” owned by Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries from the Register of Trade Marks on the ground that the user date recorded for the mark was inconsistent and that the trademark owner had not used the mark in the form in which it was registered. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 11, 2026, said the petitioner had not shown sufficient grounds...

Madras High Court Grants Interim Injunction To Block Unauthorized Broadcast Of 'Jab Khuli Kitab'

The Madras High Court on 16 March, held that preventive measures are necessary to protect copyright owners from irreparable harm and granted an ad‑interim injunction restraining unauthorized broadcasting of the film Jab Khuli Kitab. A single‑judge Bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy allowed the injunction against dozens of internet service providers (ISPs) and cable TV operators. He held: “In matters of this nature, it is likely that irreversible injury will occur unless unlawful...

Arbitral Tribunal Cannot Direct Renewal Of Determinable Contract: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award and a subsequent order of a single judge, ruling that an arbitral tribunal cannot direct continuation or renewal of a determinable contract, as such relief is barred under Section 14(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. A Division Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi held that once a contract is determinable in nature, an arbitral tribunal cannot compel its continuation or renewal. “Section 14(d) of the...

Madras High Court Restrains Illegal Broadcast Of Bollywood Film 'Dhurandhar: The Revenge' Ahead Of Release

The Madras High Court has protected the streaming rights of Reliance Industries Limited (Jio Studios), granting an interim injunction against dozens of internet service providers and cable operators to prevent the unlawful broadcast of the film 'Dhurandhar The Revenge'.On March 18, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that such preventive measures are necessary to avoid irreversible injury to the creators just before the movie's scheduled theatrical release. Dhurandhar The Revenge,...

Court Can Examine Arbitrator Appointment In Arbitral Award Challenge Even If Not Pleaded: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has reiterated that courts can examine the validity of an arbitrator's appointment even if the issue was not specifically pleaded in a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, where the defect goes to the root of the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction. Setting aside a 2016 arbitral award, the Single Bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that the tribunal lacked inherent jurisdiction since the sole arbitrator, an official of Indian Oil...

“Not Worth Paper It Was Written On”: Madras High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of ₹24-Crore Arbitral Award

Calling a Rs 24-crore arbitral award a “fraud” and “not worth the paper it had been written in”, the Madras High Court has upheld a 2019 order setting aside the award in a land dispute, holding that the Memorandum of Understanding on which the claim was based was an unlawful agreement opposed to public policy. A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Kumaresh Babu upheld a Single Judge's order dated 25 June 2019 which had set aside the arbitral award dated 23 March 2015. ...

Trademark Application Can Be Examined By Authorized Officer, Not Only Officer From Appropriate Office: Madras High Court

While Section 18(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which requires a trademark application to be filed in the Trade Marks Registry office within whose territorial limits the applicant's principal place of business in India is situated, governs the place of filing, the Madras High Court has clarified that the statute does not require that the application must be examined only by an officer attached to that very office. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, in an order dated March 4, 2026, held that...