Madras High Court
Failure To Provide Translation Vitiates Trademark Registration: Madras High Court Cancels 'THUFAN' Mark
The Madras High Court has cancelled the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil, holding that failure to provide mandatory transliteration and translation while advertising the mark deprived affected parties of their statutory right to oppose it.In a judgment dated December 12, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed appeals filed by Kolkata-based fan maker Shambhunath & Bros., which uses the mark “TOOFAN”. The...
Bias of Even One Arbitrator Taints Entire Arbitral Award: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has set aside an arbitral award, holding that the bias of even a single arbitrator is sufficient to vitiate the entire award, even where the decision is unanimous. Justice N. Anand Venkatesh said parties are entitled to an arbitral tribunal that is impartial in its entirety and not merely a neutral majority. Bias, the court held, violates Section 18 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires equal treatment of parties, and also goes against the...
Realty Company's Sale of Long-Held Freehold Land Is Capital Gains Not Business Income: Madras Court
The Madras High Court has held that profits earned from the sale of decades-old freehold land must be taxed as capital gains and not as business income, rejecting the income tax department's attempt to treat the transaction as part of a real estate business. A division bench of Justices Anita Sumanth and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar said the record clearly showed that the land was held as a long-term asset and was sold without any development or trading activity. "The accounts reveal that the...
Limitation Plea Can Be Raised At Any Stage As Long As Facts Are On Record: Madras High Court
In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court held that a belated plea of limitation cannot be entertained where the factual foundation necessary to examine such a plea is absent on record. The ruling came from a bench of Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth and Justice P Dhanabal while dismissing an appeal filed by Modern Engineering & Plastics Pvt. Ltd. The court noted that "Normally, limitation, if it were to be a pure question of law may be raised at any stage of the proceeding, and it would not...
Patent Opposition Board Recommendations Are Advisory, Not Binding Decision: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court has refused to step in midway in a patent dispute over a cancer drug, holding that a recommendation made by the Opposition Board during post-grant opposition proceedings is only advisory and does not create anu valid binding rights. Dismissing the writ petition filed by two foreign pharma firms, Justice N. Senthilkumar said the patent holders must place all their objections before the Controller of Patents, who alone takes the final call.The court was hearing a...
Madras High Court Upholds Grant Of Virtual Agent Patent To US Company, Dismisses Flipkart's Challenge
The Madras High Court on Monday refused to interfere with the Patent Office's rejection of Flipkart's post-grant opposition, allowing a US company's patent on virtual agents used in online customer interactions to continue.In an order dated January 5, 2026, Justice N. Senthilkumar refused to interfere with the decision of the Patent Office, which had dismissed Flipkart's post-grant opposition and allowed the patent titled “Systems and Methods for Virtual Agents to Help Customers and Business” to...
Madras High Court Temporarily Bars Use Of “URG-9”, Finds It Deceptively Similar To “ARG-9”
The Madras High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining Foregen Healthcare Ltd. from using the pharmaceutical mark “URG-9.” The court held that it was prima facie deceptively similar to the registered trademark “ARG-9” owned by Nouveau Medicament Private Limited.Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy passed the order on January 7, 2026, while deciding the interim injunction application in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit concerning pharmaceutical products.The court observed,...
Procuring Authority Liable For Differential GST In Government Contracts: Madras High Court Reiterates
Reiterating that additional GST arising from the rollout of the GST regime in government works contracts must be borne by the procuring authority, the Madras High Court has directed the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to consider a contractor's claim for reimbursement of differential tax.A Bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar relying on settled law, held that contractors cannot be fastened with liability for differential GST, interest, or penalties when tax was discharged strictly in accordance...