{"id":7992,"date":"2025-09-05T04:56:35","date_gmt":"2025-09-05T04:56:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=7992"},"modified":"2025-09-05T05:03:33","modified_gmt":"2025-09-05T05:03:33","slug":"plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/","title":{"rendered":"Plea of Prima facie invalidity under Section 124 of Trademarks Act 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"container\">\n<header>\n<h1><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Anugraha_Castings_Anr_Vs_Anugraha_Valve_Castings_Limited\"><\/span>Anugraha Castings &amp; Anr. Vs. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n<div class=\"meta\">Order Date: 22.08.2025 | Case Number: CRP.No.2480 of 2025<\/div>\n<div class=\"meta\">Court: The High Court of Judicature at Madras | Judge: The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P.B. Balaji<\/div>\n<\/header>\n<article>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case is a legal battle between two companies in Coimbatore, India, both using the word &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; in their business names. Anugraha Castings, a partnership firm, and Anugraha Valve Castings Limited, a company, clashed over who has the right to use &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; as a trademark. The dispute reached the Madras High Court when Anugraha Castings challenged the Commercial Court\u2019s decision on which issues should be considered in a related lawsuit. This summary explains the facts, the dispute, the court\u2019s reasoning, and the final decision in simple language, while keeping all legal provisions intact, to help law students and junior lawyers understand the case.<\/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-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#Anugraha_Castings_Anr_Vs_Anugraha_Valve_Castings_Limited\" >Anugraha Castings &amp; Anr. Vs. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/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\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#Background\" >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\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#The_Dispute\" >The 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\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#Detailed_Reasoning\" >Detailed Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#Section_124_and_Prima_Facie_Requirement\" >Section 124 and Prima Facie Requirement<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#Decision\" >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\/plea-of-prima-facie-invalidity-under-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Background\"><\/span>Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Anugraha Valve Castings Limited (the respondent) claimed they started using the word &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; as a trademark in 2003. They registered it as a trademark (Registration No. 5117934) on 04.09.2021 for use in Classes 6 (metals and alloys), 7 (machines and machine tools), and 40 (material treatment), which are related to the alloys and casting industry.<\/p>\n<p>The respondent sent a cease-and-desist notice to Anugraha Castings in 2021, asking them to stop using &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; in their business, claiming it violated their trademark rights. However, they did not file a lawsuit until 2025, when they filed a commercial suit (C.O.S.No.2 of 2025) in the Commercial Court, Coimbatore. The suit asked for court orders to stop Anugraha Castings from using &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; and to enforce the respondent\u2019s trademark rights.<\/p>\n<p>Anugraha Castings, as defendants in the suit, argued that the respondent\u2019s trademark was invalid because &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; is a common word used in seven languages and not a unique term created by the respondent. They also claimed the respondent lied to the Trademark Registry by saying &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; was a coined (made-up) word.<\/p>\n<p>Anugraha Castings filed a Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution in the Madras High Court. They asked the court to order the Commercial Court to include nine specific issues (numbered 4 to 12 in their draft) in the lawsuit. On 09.06.2025, the Commercial Court framed some issues for the lawsuit after hearing both sides but did not include all the issues proposed by Anugraha Castings, especially those challenging the validity of the respondent\u2019s trademark. This led Anugraha Castings to file the revision petition in the High Court.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute\"><\/span>The Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The main issue was whether the Commercial Court made a mistake by not including all of Anugraha Castings\u2019 proposed issues, particularly those questioning the validity of the respondent\u2019s trademark. Anugraha Castings argued that &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; is a common word, not unique to the respondent, and that the respondent misled the Trademark Registry to get the registration. They wanted the Commercial Court to frame issues that would allow them to challenge the trademark\u2019s validity and possibly seek its cancellation (rectification). The respondent, however, argued that their trademark was validly registered, that &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; was not a common term in their industry, and that Anugraha Castings\u2019 challenge was weak and too late.<\/p>\n<p>The case involves key provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which governs trademarks in India:<\/p>\n<div class=\"provisions\">\n<dl>\n<dt><strong>Section 124:<\/strong><\/dt>\n<dd>This section outlines what happens when a trademark\u2019s validity is challenged in a lawsuit.<\/dd>\n<dd>If a rectification (cancellation) process is already underway with the Trademark Registry or High Court, the lawsuit must be paused until that process is complete.<\/dd>\n<dd>If no rectification process is ongoing, and the court believes there\u2019s a strong initial (prima facie) case that the trademark is invalid, the court must frame an issue about the invalidity and give the challenger three months to file for rectification.<\/dd>\n<dt>Section 31(1):<\/dt>\n<dd>A registered trademark is assumed valid unless successfully challenged within the legal time limit.<\/dd>\n<dd><\/dd>\n<dt><strong>Section 17(2)(b):<\/strong><\/dt>\n<dd>This allows someone to use a trademark in good faith if it\u2019s a common term in the trade, without infringing on another\u2019s rights.<\/dd>\n<dt>Article 227 of the Constitution of India:<\/dt>\n<dd>This gives High Courts the power to oversee lower courts and correct serious errors, which Anugraha Castings used to challenge the Commercial Court\u2019s decision.<\/dd>\n<dt>Patel Field Marshal Agencies vs. P.M. Diesel Limited (2018) 2 SCC 112:<\/dt>\n<dd>This Supreme Court case was cited by the petitioners. It states that trademark validity issues must be decided by the Trademark Tribunal, not a civil court, but only if the court finds a strong initial case for invalidity.<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The court agreed that Section 124 allows a defendant to challenge a trademark\u2019s validity, but only if they present a strong and believable case (prima facie tenable). The petitioners\u2019 main argument was that &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; is a common word in seven languages. However, the court said this didn\u2019t matter unless &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; was a common term in the alloys and casting industry (Classes 6, 7, and 40). The petitioners provided no evidence that it was common in this industry. The respondent\u2019s explanation\u2014that &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; was coined from the founder\u2019s and his wife\u2019s names and matched their company name\u2014seemed reasonable and believable at this stage. The court concluded there was no strong case to question the trademark\u2019s validity, so the Commercial Court was right not to frame an issue about invalidity.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_124_and_Prima_Facie_Requirement\"><\/span><a href=\"\/legal\/article-13892-section-124-of-trademarks-act-1999-and-contents-of-replication.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Section 124 and Prima Facie Requirement<\/a><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The court clarified that Section 124 doesn\u2019t require framing an issue for every claim of invalidity. The claim must be strong enough to justify pausing the lawsuit and allowing a rectification challenge. The court referred to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Patel Field Marshal Agencies, which said that only credible claims of invalidity should lead to framing an issue, to avoid delays from weak or frivolous claims. Since the petitioners\u2019 claim about &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; being a common word lacked evidence in the context of the industry, it didn\u2019t meet the threshold for framing an issue.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The court refused to frame an issue on the invalidity of the respondent\u2019s trademark, finding no strong or believable case to support it. The court upheld the Commercial Court\u2019s decision not to include this issue, as the petitioners failed to show that &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; was a common term in the alloys and casting industry. There were no orders for costs, and the related Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case shows how courts handle trademark disputes, especially when one party questions the validity of another\u2019s trademark. The Madras High Court balanced the need to protect valid trademarks with ensuring a fair trial by allowing some of the petitioners\u2019 issues but rejecting their weak challenge to the trademark\u2019s validity. For law students and junior lawyers, this case teaches the importance of presenting strong evidence when challenging a trademark, the role of statutory time limits, and how courts decide which issues to include in a lawsuit. It also highlights the practical application of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act in commercial disputes.<\/p>\n<p class=\"author\">Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<div class=\"disclaimer\"><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong>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<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/article>\n<footer class=\"footnote\">Case Title: <strong>Anugraha Castings &amp; Anr. Vs. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/footer>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Anugraha Castings &amp; Anr. Vs. Anugraha Valve Castings Limited Order Date: 22.08.2025 | Case Number: CRP.No.2480 of 2025 Court: The High Court of Judicature at Madras | Judge: The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice P.B. Balaji Introduction This case is a legal battle between two companies in Coimbatore, India, both using the word &#8220;Anugraha&#8221; in their business<\/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":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-7992","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7992","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=7992"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7992\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7992"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7992"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7992"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}