{"id":6942,"date":"2025-08-04T05:09:42","date_gmt":"2025-08-04T05:09:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6942"},"modified":"2025-08-04T05:18:48","modified_gmt":"2025-08-04T05:18:48","slug":"groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/","title":{"rendered":"Groundless Threats and Trademark Opposition"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The case of <strong>Naga Limited Vs. Cherukuri Gopi Chand<\/strong>, adjudicated by the Madras High Court, explores the scope of <strong>Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong>, which concerns groundless threats of legal proceedings. Heard under <em>C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025<\/em>, this case involves an application by the defendant, Naga Limited, seeking summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff\u2019s suit. The suit sought declarations and injunctions against alleged threats made through notices of opposition to the plaintiff\u2019s trademark applications.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual 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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<\/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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/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\/groundless-threats-and-trademark-opposition\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The central issue was whether such notices constitute actionable threats under Section 142, raising significant questions about statutory interpretation and the appropriateness of summary disposal in trademark disputes.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Cherukuri Gopi Chand, trading as Anaganaga, operates a business in Gachibowli, Telangana, and applied to register the trademark &#8220;ANAGANAGA&#8221; and its variants for services\u2014likely in the restaurant sector\u2014under Class 43. Naga Limited, based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, holds registered trademarks for &#8220;NAGA&#8221; across multiple classes, including Class 43. The dispute arose when Naga Limited filed notices of opposition against three of Gopi Chand\u2019s applications, alleging &#8220;ANAGANAGA&#8221; was deceptively similar to &#8220;NAGA&#8221; and infringed its rights.<\/p>\n<p>Gopi Chand then filed a suit, claiming these notices amounted to groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The suit was filed under Sections 134 and 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules. Gopi Chand sought multiple reliefs, including:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>A declaration that &#8220;ANAGANAGA&#8221; is distinct from &#8220;NAGA&#8221;<\/li>\n<li>A declaration that his use did not infringe Naga\u2019s rights<\/li>\n<li>An injunction against further threats<\/li>\n<li>Damages for business losses<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Naga Limited responded with an application (<em>A. No. 2833 of 2025<\/em>) under Order XIII-A of the CPC for summary dismissal, arguing the suit had no real prospect of success.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The key question was whether the notices of opposition filed by Naga Limited constituted <strong>groundless threats under Section 142(1)<\/strong>. Naga argued that opposition proceedings before the Registrar of Trade Marks are statutory and not threats, thus falling outside Section 142. It also stated that Gopi Chand had not shown commercial use of &#8220;ANAGANAGA,&#8221; weakening his claim. Naga maintained its opposition was legitimate given its registered rights.<\/p>\n<p>Gopi Chand, in contrast, argued that statements in the notices alleging infringement and threatening action under Sections 102 and 103 amounted to actionable threats. He urged a broad interpretation of \u201cor otherwise\u201d in Section 142(1) and alleged the opposition was an abuse of process, as Naga did not operate in the same business segment.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Both sides cited key judgments. Naga Limited relied on <em>Chartered Institute of Taxation v. Institute of Chartered Tax Advisers of India Limited (2019 SCC OnLine Del 11952)<\/em>, where it was held that opposition proceedings are formal statutory actions and not threats under Section 142.<\/p>\n<p>Gopi Chand cited <em>Sidharth Wheels Private Limited v. Bedrock Limited (1987 SCC OnLine Del 365)<\/em> to argue that \u201cor otherwise\u201d in Section 142 should be interpreted broadly to include private notices of opposition. He also referenced <em>D. Val Divora v. Union of India (2021 (4) Mh. L.J. 282)<\/em> to allege abuse of process by Naga.<\/p>\n<p>Both parties also implicitly relied on <em>Godaddy.com LLC v. Puravankara Projects Limited (2022 (91) PTC 440 (Mad))<\/em>, where Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy had outlined principles for summary judgment under Order XIII-A. This precedent guided the court\u2019s evaluation of the summary dismissal application.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Judge\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy\u2019s detailed judgment began by analyzing whether the opposition notices constituted threats under Section 142(1). He held that opposition proceedings are formal statutory actions and not \u201cthreats\u201d as intended by the section.<\/p>\n<p>The court acknowledged that \u201cor otherwise\u201d can include private communications (per <em>Sidharth Wheels<\/em>), but clarified that opposition notices are distinct since they initiate a formal legal process. Gopi Chand was advised to challenge the opposition before the Registrar or, if appropriate later, pursue a claim for malicious prosecution.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding summary judgment, the court applied the <em>Godaddy.com<\/em> principles. It found that Gopi Chand\u2019s prayer for a declaration on dissimilarity interfered with the Registrar\u2019s jurisdiction and that other reliefs lacked legal foundation. As such, the court concluded that the suit had no real prospect of success and warranted summary dismissal.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>On <strong>16 July 2025<\/strong>, the Madras High Court allowed Naga Limited\u2019s summary judgment application, dismissing <em>C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025<\/em>. The court held that the opposition notices were not threats under Section 142, and that the suit lacked merit to proceed to trial.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment clarifies that <strong>notices of opposition under trademark law are not groundless threats<\/strong> under Section 142, as they are formal statutory proceedings. The ruling emphasizes that Section 142 targets unjustified threats made through means such as circulars or advertisements\u2014not legitimate statutory actions.<\/p>\n<p>The court also reinforced the use of <strong>summary judgment under Order XIII-A<\/strong> in commercial disputes where there is no real prospect of success, especially when the issues are purely legal and do not require oral evidence. This decision prevents premature litigation that could disrupt ongoing statutory processes, while preserving the plaintiff\u2019s right to alternative remedies post-resolution of opposition proceedings.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Cherukuri Gopi Chand Trading as Anaganaga Vs. Naga Limited<\/li>\n<li><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 16 July 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:MHC:1728<\/li>\n<li><strong>Court:<\/strong> Madras High Court<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/b>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The case of Naga Limited Vs. Cherukuri Gopi Chand, adjudicated by the Madras High Court, explores the scope of Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which concerns groundless threats of legal proceedings. Heard under C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 92 of 2025, this case involves an application by the defendant, Naga Limited, seeking<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","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,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-6942","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6942","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=6942"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6942\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}