Todi Mills vs Debanjan Chakrabertty Senior Examiner of Trade Marks — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Todi Mills vs Debanjan Chakrabertty Senior Examiner of Trade Marks — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 19th February 2025 quashed and set aside; matter remanded back for fresh consideration by a different Controller on the basis of the existing record, to be completed within three months from the date of the order; Petition accordingly disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19th February 2025 rejecting the Petitioner's trade mark application no. 5890627, being entirely unreasoned (bereft of any reasoning), can be sustained.

Court's answer

The impugned order is entirely bereft of reasoning; Respondent's counsel was unable to point out any reasoning in the order, and in the Court's view such an order cannot be sustained and would have to be set aside.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 19th February 2025 rejecting trade mark application no. 5890627 is quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

The matter is remanded back for fresh consideration by a different Controller on the basis of the existing record, and this exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of the order.ratio¶¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Commercial Division, OOCJ), Coram: Arif S. Doctor, J. — COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No. 124 of 2025, Todi Mills v. Debanjan Chakrabertty, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks & Anr., decided 4th May, 2026 (corrected pursuant to Speaking to Minutes Order dated 7th May, 2026). The Petition challenged the order dated 19th February 2025 whereby the Controller rejected trade mark application no. 5890627 (mark 'GRIP' (Label), filed 12/04/2023, examined 20/10/2023; hearing 19/02/2025) solely on the ground that the mark was identical/similar to earlier marks creating a likelihood of confusion under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, without assigning any reasons. Respondent-Controller elected not to file a Reply Affidavit and the Petition was heard uncontested. Holding: the order is entirely bereft of reasoning and unsustainable; the impugned order was quashed and set aside, the matter remanded for fresh consideration by a different Controller on the existing record within three months, and the Petition disposed of. No precedents were cited or discussed.

1/3 23-COMMP-124-2025 (OS)-SPEAKING.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION

COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 124 OF 2025

Todi Mills

...Petitioner

Versus

Debanjan Chakrabertty Senior Examiner Of Trade Marks & Anr. ...Respondents

Mr. Atif Sayyed i/b Krishna & Saurastri Associates LLP for the Petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Shukla for the Respondents.

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J. DATE : 4th MAY, 2026

P.C.

The Petition impugns an order dated 19th February 2025, whereby the Application of Petitioner’s Trademark No. 5890627 came to be rejected. On the previous occasion, time was granted to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent–Controller to take instructions.

Mr. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the RespondentController today submits that the Respondent-Controller does not wish to file any Reply Affidavit to the captioned Petition, it is thus that the Petition was taken up for hearing.

Mr. Sayyed, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner,

Areeb This Order is corrected pursuant to Speaking to Minutes Order dated 7th May, 2026.

2/3 23-COMMP-124-2025 (OS)-SPEAKING.DOC

submits that the impugned order is entirely unreasoned. He then invites my attention to the impugned order which for the convenience is reproduced as

follows:

“आदेश/Order

Above application has been filed for registration of the trademark GRIP (Label) on 12/04/2023 which was examined on 20/10/2023 and examination report was communicated to the applicant at his address for service. A reply to the office objection(s) had been filed on behalf of the applicant but the same was not found satisfactory and the application was set down for hearing and eventually hearing took place before me on 19/02/2025.

AHONA CHAKRABORTY Attorney appeared before me and made his/her submissions. I have heard arguments and gone through the records.

The mark applied for registration is identical with /similar to earlier trademarks on record, as mentioned in the Examination report and by similarity of marks as well as similarity of goods and services covered under such marks, there exists a likelihood of confusion in the mind of public. As such the registration of the mark is objectionable under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1999)

After perusal of all the documents on record and submission made by the applicant/authorised agent, it is concluded that appiled mark is not registrable because of the reason stated as above. Hence application no 5890627 cannot be accepted and refused accordingly.”

From perusal of the order, there is indeed much merit in submission of

Mr. Sayyed. I then put to Mr. Shukla as to how such an order, which is entirely bereft of reasoning can be sustained. Mr. Shukla being unable to point out any reasoning in the order, the order in my view would be have to be set aside. The Application and the matter remanded back for consideration afresh by a different Controller.

Areeb This Order is corrected pursuant to Speaking to Minutes Order dated 7th May, 2026.

3/3 23-COMMP-124-2025 (OS)-SPEAKING.DOC

Accordingly, I pass the following Order:

(i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside.

(ii) The matter is remanded back for fresh consideration by a different Controller on the basis of existing record. This exercise shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of this order.

(iii) The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]

th May, 2026.

Areeb This Order is corrected pursuant to Speaking to Minutes Order dated 7