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 mark.

The Court found that Sugar Brands had established prior use of the mark “SUGAR” in the cosmetics business from February 1, 2015, and that the respondent's subsequent registration for identical goods such as soaps, perfumes and cosmetics was likely to cause confusion among the public.

It held, “it appears that the Registrar of Trade Marks did not exercise due diligence while carrying out a search for conflicting marks. This is evident from the search report annexed to the examination report dated 20.02.2019 (Ex.P10). Considering the marks and the substantially similar businesses, the use of the impugned mark is likely to cause confusion or deception among the public. Hence, I conclude that the impugned mark was entered on the register without sufficient cause. Consequently, rectification is warranted.”

Sugar Brands had filed a rectification petition against Sugar Pop Bath and Body LLP and the Registrar of Trademarks, seeking removal of the rival mark.

The company contended that the respondent's device mark was deceptively similar to its established “SUGAR COSMETICS” brand and its registered variants, all of which prominently feature the word “SUGAR”.

To substantiate its claim as a prior user, Sugar relied on legal use certificates reflecting use from February 1, 2015, along with invoices from 2016 onwards and other materials evidencing continuous commercial use.

It also argued that the Registrar failed to exercise due diligence, pointing out that the official search report accompanying the examination report incorrectly recorded no conflicting marks despite the petitioner's multiple prior registrations, creating a likelihood of confusion in the same line of business.

The court accepted these submissions, holding that the petitioner was the prior user, while the respondent's user claim dated back only to 2018. It also noted that both parties operate in substantially similar, if not identical, businesses.

The court further observed that the word “SUGAR” constitutes the prominent and essential element of the petitioner's marks, and the adoption of the same dominant element by the respondent for identical goods amounted to deceptive similarity.

Therefore, the court ordered, “For reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed by directing that the entry relating to Trade Mark No.4074848 be removed from the register of trade marks. This action shall be undertaken within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.”