{"id":26610,"date":"2026-07-03T08:19:21","date_gmt":"2026-07-03T08:19:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26610"},"modified":"2026-07-03T08:22:05","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T08:22:05","slug":"kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision of the Madras High Court in <strong>Kangaro Industries (Regd.) v. V-Guard Industries &amp; Anr.<\/strong> is an important ruling for trademark proprietors, applicants, intellectual property practitioners, and businesses involved in trademark disputes. The judgment addresses a recurring procedural issue in trademark opposition proceedings: whether the Registrar of Trade Marks has the authority to extend the time prescribed for filing evidence in support of an opposition under the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Case_Timeline\" >Case Timeline<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Key_Procedural_Events\" >Key Procedural Events<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Statutory_Provisions_Referred\" >Statutory Provisions Referred<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Key_Legal_Principles\" >Key Legal Principles<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Trademark opposition proceedings play a crucial role in preventing the registration of marks that may conflict with existing rights. Procedural defaults during such proceedings can have serious consequences, including deemed abandonment of an opposition. The Court&#8217;s ruling clarifies the relationship between Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, while also explaining the limits of the deemed abandonment doctrine. The judgment is therefore significant for ensuring fairness in trademark adjudication and preventing technical procedural defaults from defeating substantive rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">V-Guard Industries filed an application on 9 May 2016 seeking registration of a label mark containing the expression &#8220;KANGARO&#8221; as a prominent feature. Kangaro Industries, claiming prior adoption and use of the mark &#8220;KANGARO&#8221; since 1959, opposed the registration by filing a notice of opposition on 6 January 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicant filed its counter-statement on 19 May 2017. According to the record, the opponent received the counter-statement on 5 August 2017. Under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, the opponent was required to file evidence in support of the opposition within two months from receipt of the counter-statement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Before expiry of that period, Kangaro Industries filed Form TM-M on 23 September 2017 seeking a one-month extension of time. Evidence in support of the opposition was subsequently filed on 18 October 2017. Thereafter, V-Guard filed its evidence in support of the application and Kangaro filed evidence in reply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite the progress of the proceedings, the Registrar of Trade Marks issued a notice regarding the delay in filing evidence and ultimately passed an order on 8 May 2018 rejecting the request for extension. The Registrar concluded that the 2017 Rules did not permit any extension of time under Rule 45 and consequently held that the opposition stood abandoned under Rule 45(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved by this decision, Kangaro Industries filed an appeal before the Madras High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-timeline\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Timeline\"><\/span>Case Timeline<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>9 May 2016<\/td><td>V-Guard Industries filed an application for registration of a label mark containing &#8220;KANGARO&#8221;.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>6 January 2017<\/td><td>Kangaro Industries filed a notice of opposition.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>19 May 2017<\/td><td>Applicant filed its counter-statement.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>5 August 2017<\/td><td>Opponent received the counter-statement.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>23 September 2017<\/td><td>Form TM-M filed seeking a one-month extension.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>18 October 2017<\/td><td>Opponent filed evidence in support of the opposition.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>8 May 2018<\/td><td>Registrar rejected the extension request and treated the opposition as abandoned under Rule 45(2).<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Thereafter<\/td><td>Kangaro Industries filed an appeal before the Madras High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-procedural-events\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Procedural_Events\"><\/span>Key Procedural Events<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Trademark application filed by V-Guard Industries.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Notice of opposition filed by Kangaro Industries.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Counter-statement received by the opponent.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Form TM-M filed before expiry of the prescribed period seeking extension.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evidence filed in support of the opposition.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Registrar rejected the extension request.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Opposition deemed abandoned under Rule 45(2).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Appeal filed before the Madras High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-statutory-provisions-referred\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Statutory_Provisions_Referred\"><\/span>Statutory Provisions Referred<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Provision<\/th><th>Relevance<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Section 131, Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/td><td>Power relating to extension of time.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Section 91, Trade Marks Act<\/td><td>Appeal before the High Court.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Rule 45, Trade Marks Rules, 2017<\/td><td>Time limit for filing evidence in support of opposition and consequences of default.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of setting aside the Registrar&#8217;s order refusing extension and declaring the opposition abandoned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The opposition proceedings were restored and remanded for adjudication on merits. However, the Court declined to cancel the trademark registration already granted to V-Guard Industries because the registration had remained in force for several years and had been relied upon in subsequent proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Instead, the Court directed that the registration would remain subject to the outcome of the remanded opposition proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>If Kangaro Industries ultimately succeeds, the Registrar would be required to rectify the register by removing the impugned registration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>If the opposition fails, the registration would continue to remain valid.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgment clarifies that Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 can be invoked to seek extension of time in relation to acts for which the time limit is prescribed by the Trade Marks Rules rather than expressly fixed by the Act itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further held that an application seeking extension of time filed within the original period prescribed under Rule 45 constitutes sufficient action to prevent the operation of the deemed abandonment provision under Rule 45(2).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rules should facilitate fair adjudication and should not be applied in a manner that unnecessarily defeats substantive rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision is likely to have considerable impact on trademark opposition practice by providing greater clarity regarding the Registrar&#8217;s powers under Section 131 and by limiting the circumstances in which opposition proceedings may be treated as abandoned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-legal-principles\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Section 131 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 can be invoked for extension of time where the relevant time limit is prescribed by the Trade Marks Rules.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>An application seeking extension of time filed within the original period under Rule 45 prevents the operation of the deemed abandonment provision under Rule 45(2).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Procedural rules should facilitate fair adjudication rather than defeat substantive rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The judgment provides greater clarity on the Registrar&#8217;s powers under Section 131.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The ruling limits the circumstances in which trademark opposition proceedings may be treated as abandoned.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particular<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Title of the Case<\/td><td>Kangaro Industries (Regd.) v. V-Guard Industries &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Date of Judgment\/Order<\/td><td>21.08.2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Case Number<\/td><td>(T)CMA(TM) No.193 of 2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Neutral Citation<\/td><td>2025:MHC:2131<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Court<\/td><td>High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/td><td>Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/self-contradiction-as-estoppel-when-design-registration-bars-invalidity-claims\/\">Self-Contradiction as Estoppel: When Design Registration Bars Invalidity Claims<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/extension-vs-adjournment-doctrinal-differences-with-case-law\/\">Extension vs. Adjournment: Doctrinal Differences with Case Law<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-protection-and-its-registration-process-in-india\/\">Trademark Protection and Its Registration Process in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-trademarks-act-1999-essential-provisions-and-comprehensive-overview\/\">The Trademarks Act, 1999: Essential Provisions and Comprehensive Overview<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/supreme-court-three-year-practice-rule-civil-judge-application-deadline-2026\/\">Supreme Court Reaffirms 3-Year Practice Rule for Civil Judges; Application Deadline Extended to 30 April 2026<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The decision of the Madras High Court in Kangaro Industries (Regd.) v. V-Guard Industries &amp; Anr. is an important ruling for trademark proprietors, applicants, intellectual property practitioners, and businesses involved in trademark disputes. The judgment addresses a recurring procedural issue in trademark opposition proceedings: whether the Registrar of Trade Marks has the authority to<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-26610","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Madras High Court clarifies Section 131, Rule 45, trademark opposition, extension of time, and deemed abandonment in Kangaro v. V-Guard.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Madras High Court clarifies Section 131, Rule 45, trademark opposition, extension of time, and deemed abandonment in Kangaro v. V-Guard.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-03T08:19:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-03T08:22:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-03T08:19:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T08:22:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1020,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-03T08:19:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T08:22:05+00:00\",\"description\":\"Madras High Court clarifies Section 131, Rule 45, trademark opposition, extension of time, and deemed abandonment in Kangaro v. V-Guard.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Madras High Court clarifies Section 131, Rule 45, trademark opposition, extension of time, and deemed abandonment in Kangaro v. V-Guard.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings","og_description":"Madras High Court clarifies Section 131, Rule 45, trademark opposition, extension of time, and deemed abandonment in Kangaro v. V-Guard.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-03T08:19:21+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-03T08:22:05+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings","datePublished":"2026-07-03T08:19:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T08:22:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/"},"wordCount":1020,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/","name":"Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-03T08:19:21+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T08:22:05+00:00","description":"Madras High Court clarifies Section 131, Rule 45, trademark opposition, extension of time, and deemed abandonment in Kangaro v. V-Guard.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/kangaro-industries-v-v-guard-section-131-rule-45-trademark-opposition-madras-high-court-2025\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Kangaro Industries v. V-Guard Industries (2025): Madras High Court Clarifies Extension of Time in Trademark Opposition Proceedings"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26610","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26610"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26610\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27225,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26610\/revisions\/27225"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26610"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26610"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26610"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}