Madras High Court
Thiruvalluvar Modern Rice Mill Rep By … vs R.R. Chidambarasamy on 11 March, 2026
Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-03-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
(ORA No.16 of 2017/TM/CHN)
Thiruvalluvar Modern Rice Mill Rep by Managing
Partner D. Balasubramani
S.F. No. 1145,8A-1,9A-1,
Nandavannpudur,
Tirupur Road, Sivanmalai ( PO)
Kangayam - 638 701,
Tirupur District
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.R.R. Chidambarasamy, Trading as Thirumurugan
Modern Rice Mill
Palani Road,
Achiyur Post
Dharapuram - 638 656
2.Registrar of Trademarks
Office of the Trademarks Registry
GST Road, Guindy,
Chennai – 600032.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER:(T)OP(TM) No.245 of 2023: This transfer original petition
(Trademarks) has been filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
praying to rectify the register by removing, expunging, modifying or cancelling
the 1st Respondent's registration in respect of the trademark registered under no.
1220037 in class 30.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan
for M/s. Factum Law
For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Sathishkumar for R1
Mr.R.Subramanian, CGSC for R2
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
ORDER
The first respondent is the registered proprietor of the following device
mark:
Such registration took effect from 04.08.2003. The user claim therein is from
03.08.2003. The petitioner’s registered trademark is the following device mark:
2. On the strength of the registered trade mark of the first respondent, the
first respondent instituted O.S. No.97 of 2016 against the petitioner before the
Principal District Judge, Tiruppur. Said suit was dismissed on 23.08.2021 by
granting leave to the plaintiff therein to institute a fresh suit after a decision is
taken by the Intellectual Property Appellate Tribunal (the IPAB). The
rectification petition was filed on or about 20.07.2017 before the IPAB, and
subsequently transferred to the file of this Court.
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
3. The contentions of Mr.Rajesh Ramanathan, learned counsel, in support
of the request for rectification may be summarized as under:
(i) VALLUVAR and THIRUVALLUVAR are widely used not only by
the petitioner but also by third parties, including in relation to rice and related
products. The documents at pages 103 to 137 of the paper book of the petitioner
support this contention.
(ii) The first respondent has relied on invoices issued between 02.11.2003
and 07.03.2016. These invoices do not substantiate a user claim from
03.08.2003. These invoices also do not contain the registered trade mark except
by way of the affixing of a rubber stamp on the invoices. The invoices have
been issued in the name of Thirumurugan Modern Rice Mill and even the
products sold under the invoice do not make reference to the VALLUVAR
brand. There is sufficient reason to conclude that the rubber stamp or seal was
affixed on these invoices subsequently.
(iii) The petitioner had approached this Court against the order of interim
injunction granted in O.S. No.97 of 2016. This Court in a judgment reported in
Thiruvalluvar Modern Rice Mill v. R.B.Chidambarasamy, 2017 SCC OnLine
37798, at paragraphs 16 to 18, concluded that the name VALLUVAR is
associated with the Saint Poet of Tamil, who is revered by the Tamil diaspora,
and that no one can claim a monopoly or exclusivity over the name
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
VALLUVAR or THIRUVALLUVAR. The said order attained finality and the
suit was dismissed later, albeit with liberty to file a fresh suit.
(iv) In Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh , MANU/SC/1260/2015,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the word “RAMAYAN” is publici juris
and common to the trade. In IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Bestech India Pvt.
Ltd., AIR 2013 Delhi 32, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court concluded
that the trademark ‘Ananda’ is publici juris and that the registered proprietor
had failed to provide evidence that it had acquired secondary meaning. In
Chandra Bhan Agarwal and another v. Arjundas Agarwal and others, AIR 1979
Calcutta 280, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the mark
‘Dora’ is descriptive and that a condition or limitation should be imposed by
the Registrar of Trade Marks in relation to such marks.
(v) Relying on these judgments, learned counsel contended that the first
respondent cannot be permitted to claim a monopoly over VALLUVAR applied
in relation to rice products. Such mark being inherently non-distinctive and
weak, at a minimum, a disclaimer should be incorporated so as to prevent the
first respondent from abusing the registration and causing prejudice to persons
such as the petitioner.
(vi) Although the petitioner’s mark contains the element ‘VALLUVAR’,
such mark is a composite mark.
(vii) The petitioner is not aggrieved by the registration in favour of M/s.
Meenambiga Rice Mill and is referring thereto to corroborate the contention
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
that the registrar should not have permitted registration of the first respondent’s
later deceptively similar mark so as to maintain the purity of the register.
4. The contentions of Mr.R.Sathishkumar, learned counsel, in response
may be summarized as under:
(i) The first respondent has registered a device mark consisting of the
words VALLUVAR brand and a pictorial device of VALLUVAR.
(ii) Apart from invoices, the first respondent has also filed the certificate
of authorisation dated 20.12.2004 issued under the Agricultural Produce
(Grading and Marking) Act, 1937 as also the Agmark registration by the
Government of India on 07.09.2006.
(iii) The evidence of alleged use by third parties of VALLUVAR or
THIRUVALLUVAR is in the form of photographs. Such photographs do not
constitute valid evidence of use. In the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd, AIR 1960 SC
142, the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded that a search report from the
Registrar of Trade Marks does not constitute evidence of use. Similarly, these
photographs do not establish use by third parties. The judgment of this Court in
P.M.Palani Mudaliar & Co. v. M/s.Jansons Exports and Another, 2017 SCC
OnLine Mad 1090 (“Palani Mudaliar”), is relied on for the contention that
publici juris should be proved by establishing at least substantial use by third
parties.
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
5. On the basis of these rival contentions, the first question that falls for
consideration is whether the petitioner has established that VALLUVAR in
relation to rice products is publici juris. Neither of the contesting parties opted
to adduce oral evidence in this case. As evidence of the alleged wide use of
VALLUVAR in relation to rice products, the petitioner has filed photographs of
probably packaging at pages 103 to 137 of the paper book of the petitioner. In
Palani Mudaliar, the Division Bench of this Court examined the defence of
publici juris inter alia at paragraphs 18 to 20. The Court held that the proper
test is whether the use of the trade mark by other persons has ceased to deceive
the public as to the maker of the article. In other words, there should be clear
evidence of substantial use by third parties. Merely on the basis of the
photographs placed on record by the petitioner, I am unable to conclude that
VALLUVAR in relation to rice products is publici juris.
6. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the
user claim was made from 03.08.2003, whereas the first respondent has not
adduced evidence of use from 03.08.2003. Several invoices have been filed by
the first respondent. These invoices were issued between 02.11.2003 and about
07.03.2016. Many of these invoices contain a device with the words
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
VALLUVAR brand and the pictorial depiction of VALLUVAR. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that such device appears to have been
affixed later. In the absence of oral evidence, I am unable to accept the
contention that the device containing the first respondent’s mark was affixed
subsequently and does not form part of the original invoices. As a consequence,
I find that there is evidence of use from 02.11.2003. Although there is no
evidence of use from 03.08.2003, the lack of evidence for a period of about
three months is insufficient to conclude that the first respondent has committed
a contravention warranting interference under Section 57 of the Trade Marks
Act, 1999 (the TM Act).
7. The third contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
mark of the first respondent is not inherently distinctive and given the finding of
this Court that VALLUVAR and THIRUVALLUVAR refer to the Poet Saint of
the Tamil people and that no person can claim monopoly or exclusivity over the
same, at a minimum, a disclaimer should be incorporated preventing the first
respondent from asserting such exclusivity.
8. Under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, it was common to
direct the incorporation of disclaimers. In the TM Act, Section 17 has been
incorporated and this provision ensures that the proprietor of a composite mark
has protection only in respect of such composite mark and not in respect of
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
elements thereof, unless such elements are separately registered. In the case on
hand, the registered mark of the first respondent is a device mark consisting of
the word element ‘VALLUVAR brand’ and a pictorial device of VALLUVAR.
The protection is also limited to such composite mark. Therefore, if the first
respondent chooses to initiate an action for passing off upon disposal of this
petition, it would obviously be open to the petitioner to contend that there was
no misrepresentation by the petitioner in adopting and using its registered trade
mark, which as is evident from the depiction, is a composite mark. The District
Court would then have to compare the two rival composite marks and arrive at
a conclusion in accordance with law.
9. The petitioner also contended that the first respondent’s mark should
not have been registered in view of the prior registered deceptively similar mark
in respect of the same goods. The proprietor of said mark is not before this
Court. There is nothing on record to show that said proprietor has approached a
court alleging infringement or that rectification was applied for by said
proprietor. In the absence of said party, it is not possible to ascertain whether
the mark is still being used and, if so, in which geographies. The first
respondent has used the trade mark for more than two decades. Hence the
challenge on this ground is rejected.
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
10. For reasons discussed above, I conclude that no case is made out for
rectification on any of the grounds canvassed by the petitioner. This petition is,
therefore, disposed of subject to observations set out herein without any order
as to costs.
11-03-2026
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
KAL
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
To
1.R.R. Chidambarasamy, Trading as Thirumurugan Modern Rice Mill
Palani Road,
Achiyur Post
Dharapuram – 638 656
2.Registrar of Trademarks
Office of the Trademarks Registry
GST Road, Guindy,
Chennai – 600032
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.
KAL
(T)OP(TM) No. 245 of 2023
11-03-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2026 06:57:32 pm )