Authority: Madras High Court, Intellectual Property Division

Order Date: 30-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: V-Guard Industries Limited (appellant) vs. Kangaro Industries (respondent) and the Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai.
  • Trademark Application No. 3254001 (class 16) for the label mark ‘KANGARO’ was filed by V-Guard on 09‑05‑2016.
  • Kangaro Industries opposed the application on 06‑01‑2017 after advertisement in Trade Mark Journal No.1767.
  • V-Guard filed a counter‑statement on 19‑05‑2017; Kangaro received it on 05‑08‑2017.
  • Under the 2017 Trade Marks Rules, evidence in support of opposition had to be filed within two months of the counter‑statement (Rule 45(1)).
  • Kangaro sought a one‑month extension via Form TM‑M on 23‑09‑2017 and filed evidence on 18‑10‑2017, but did not rely on the notice of opposition as required by Rule 45(1).
  • A second extension request was made on 19‑01‑2018; reply evidence was filed on 03‑02‑2018.
  • The Registrar issued a notice on 01‑03‑2018 regarding the delay and, on 08‑05‑2018, rejected the extension and declared the opposition abandoned under Rule 45(2).
  • Kangaro appealed the Registrar’s order under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board on 27‑07‑2018; the IPAB was later abolished.
  • The appeal was listed before the Madras High Court Intellectual Property Division on 12‑09‑2023.
  • A single‑judge judgment dated 21‑08‑2025 set aside the Registrar’s 08‑05‑2018 order, remanded the matter for fresh consideration, and directed that V‑Guard’s registration be subject to the outcome of the remanded opposition.
  • V‑Guard filed the present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No.18 of 2026) challenging the 2025 judgment, arguing that Rule 45 is mandatory and that no appeal lies against the Registrar’s refusal to extend time under Section 131.
  • The Court examined the statutory language of Rule 45(1) and (2), emphasizing the mandatory use of “shall” and the absence of any provision for extension under the 2017 Rules.
  • The Court also considered precedents, notably the Delhi High Court’s decision in SAP SE v. Swiss Auto Products (2024), which held the two‑month period under Rule 45(1) to be absolute.

Final Outcome

  • The Court set aside the single‑judge’s 21‑08‑2025 order.
  • The letters patent appeal is allowed; the Registrar’s 08‑05‑2018 order rejecting the extension and deeming the opposition abandoned stands.
  • Consequently, Kangaro Industries’ opposition remains abandoned, and V‑Guard’s registration of the ‘KANGARO’ label mark continues unchallenged.
  • No order as to costs was made, and the connected CMP is closed.

Topics: Trademark Law, Intellectual Property Regulation