Landmark Victory Before the Madras High Court: Division Bench Cancels Registered Trademark for Non-Compliance with Rule 33

Introduction

In a significant and precedent-setting judgment, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Madras High Court has delivered a landmark ruling on mandatory compliance with Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, leading to the cancellation and rectification of a fully registered trademark.

This decision assumes historic importance as there was no prior judicial precedent holding that non-compliance with Rule 33 could invalidate an already registered trademark. The judgment firmly establishes that procedural compliance at the registration stage is not a mere formality but a substantive statutory requirement.

Case Overview

Case Title:M/s. Shambhunath & Bros v. Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Case Numbers: LPA Nos. 27 & 28 of 2024

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment:12 December 2025

Coram: Hon’ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose out of rectification proceedings initiated against the registration of the trademark “THUFAN” in Telugu and Tamil scripts under Application Nos. 1505280 and 1506140 in Class 11.

The registrations were challenged on the ground that the respondent had failed to comply with Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002, which mandates:

• Transliteration and translation of marks in scripts other than Hindi or English; and
• Disclosure of the language to which the mark belongs.

Despite this statutory requirement, the marks were accepted, advertised, and eventually registered without compliance, thereby depriving the appellant and the public at large of a meaningful opportunity to oppose the registration.

Amongst other grounds, the impugned registrations were specifically challenged for violation of Rule 27, on account of the deliberate non-disclosure of the predecessor’s particulars and the consequent failure to validly establish and prove the chain of title.

Key Issue Before the Court

Whether non-compliance with Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 is a curable procedural defect or a mandatory violation warranting cancellation of an already registered trademark?

Division Bench Findings: A Landmark Interpretation

The Hon’ble Division Bench decisively held that:

• Rule 33 is mandatory in nature
• Non-compliance goes to the root of the registration process
• An advertisement issued without Rule 33 compliance is no advertisement in the eye of law
• Such violation vitiates the principles of natural justice, as it deprives affected parties of their statutory right to oppose

Impact on Trademark Law & Practice

This judgment will have far-reaching implications:

• Trade Marks Registry must strictly scrutinize Rule 33 compliance
• Applicants using regional language marks must exercise enhanced diligence
• Advertisements without translation/transliteration are vulnerable to challenge
• Registered marks are no longer immune from cancellation for procedural violations

Conclusion

This path-breaking judgment strengthens the integrity of the trademark registration process and reinforces that statutory compliance is the foundation of valid intellectual property rights.

By restoring the rule of law in trademark administration, the Madras High Court has set a new benchmark for procedural discipline, making this ruling a cornerstone precedent in Indian trademark jurisprudence.