Madras High Court Quashes Cancellation Of 'SAKTHI' Trademark Without Prior Notice

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, in a judgment delivered on January 27, 2026, allowed an appeal filed by Perundurai Chennimalai Gounder Duraisamy, a Tamil Nadu-based food products manufacturer and the proprietor of 'SAKTHI' trademark, directing the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark registration.

Holding that the cancellation of trademark registration without notice to the trademark owner was invalid in eyes of law, the Court observed that, “In the considered view of this Court, the entire procedure followed by the 1st respondent smacks with arbitrariness and it is in utter violation of principles of natural justice.”

The case related to a trademark registration for the “SAKTHI” mark granted in favour of Duraisamy in 2005. The registration had been renewed from time to time and was subsisting. However, the trademark owner later discovered that the registration had been treated as abandoned and removed from the Registry's records, without any prior notice.

The trademark owner told the Court that it had adopted the mark as early as 1977 and had been continuously using it for food products including spices, masala powders, cereals, etc., with sales across India and exports abroad. It stated that it was never informed of any proposal to cancel the registration or of any revival of the trademark application for further proceedings.

The Court noted that the issue stemmed from public notices issued in February and March 2023 by the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, which listed several trademark applications as proposed to be abandoned for failure to file counter-statements in opposition proceedings.

These public notices were subsequently challenged before the Delhi High Court, where the Controller General undertook to withdraw the notices and restore the affected trademark applications to their original status.

The Court recorded that despite this undertaking, the Trade Marks Registry proceeded to revive the trademark application, publish it afresh for opposition, entertain opposition proceedings and thereafter pass an order dated May 9, 2025 treating the application as abandoned, without issuing notice to the registered trademark owner.

Disagreeing with the approach, the Court observed that once a trademark registration certificate is issued, the Registry has no power to cancel it on its own. It clarified that any challenge to a registered trademark can only be made through rectification proceedings in accordance with law.

It further held that opposition proceedings can take place only prior to the grant of registration and that reopening opposition proceedings after registration, without notice to the registered proprietor, was impermissible.

“Whereas the 1st respondent has proceeded to cancel the certificate unilaterally and restored the application and entertained opposition. Such a procedure is nowhere contemplated under the Act and Rules,” the Court said.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the Trade Marks Registry to restore the trademark registration.

For Appellant: Advocate S. Diwakar

For Respondents: Senior Panel-Central Government Standing Counsel C. Samivel for Trademark Registry; Advocate M.K. Miglani for Kumar Food Industries Limited