Dismissed¶¶22

Liberty Footwear Company v. M/s. Rozi Enterprises

Trade Marks – Rectification/Revocation/Cancellation

Madras HC22 Apr 2025(T)OP(TM)/410/2023

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Liberty Footwear Company v. Rozi Enterprises & Registrar of Trade Marks, (T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023 (ORA/10/2021/TM/CHN), High Court of Judicature at Madras, decided 22.04.2025 by Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J. Procedural dismissal only: petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenging registration of TM Application No.990346 (Class 29) dismissed for non-prosecution after petitioner failed to file a fresh vakalat and gave no appearance. Contains no ruling on rectification standards, evidentiary questions, or precedent treatment; of limited citation value except to evidence dismissal-for-non-prosecution practice in TM transferred petitions before the Madras High Court.

What did the court decide?

None ¶¶22

Liberty Footwear Company Vs M/s. Rozi Enterprises — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22.04.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

(T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023 (ORA/10/2021/TM/CHN)

¶7

M/s. Liberty Footwear Company Liberty House, Railway Road, Karnal, Haryana 132001. Also at 4/42, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi 110026. ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs-

¶9

M/s. Rozi Enterprises 17-1-382/K/sb/153/D, Champapet, Hyderabad 500059 (A.P).

¶10

The Registrar of Trade Marks, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. ... Respondents

¶11

1/4

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

(T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023

¶14

Prayer : Transferred Original Petition (Trade Marks) is filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to rectify/revoke/cancel the registration of the trade mark

¶15

bearing Application No.990346 in Class 29 granted in favour of the 1^st respondent.

¶16

For Petitioner : No appearance For R1 : Mr.K.Mohan Kumar for M/s.Rao & Rao For R2 : Mr.M.Karthikeyan, SPC

¶17

ORDER

¶18

At the previous hearing on 08.04.2025, it was recorded that the petitioner was represented by Ms.Apoorva Maheshwari, learned counsel, at the hearing on 20.02.2025, and that she had requested for time to file a fresh vakalat. It was also recorded that such vakalat had not been filed. Therefore, the matter was listed today under the caption “for dismissal”. At today's

¶19

2/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

(T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023

¶22

hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. Therefore, (T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023 is dismissed for non-prosecution without any order as to costs.

¶23

22.04.2025

¶24

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No kj To The Registrar of Trade Marks, Boudhik Sampada Bhawan, GST Road, Guindy, Chennai 600 032.

¶25

3/4

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

(T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023

¶28

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

¶29

¶30

(T)OP(TM)No.410 of 2023 (ORA/10/2021/TM/CHN)

¶31