Madras High Court Upholds Registration of ‘GANESHA’ Trademark for Gram Flour on Ground of Honest Concurrent Use and Territorial Limitations
Case Title: Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. (Previously known as Ganesh Grains Ltd.) v. Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and G.I. & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Date of Judgment: 15.04.2026
Citation: 2026:MHC:1519
In a notable trademark appeal concerning rival claims over marks containing the word “GANESHA” for gram flour (Class 30), the Madras High Court dismissed the challenge filed by Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. and upheld the registration of the device mark “SPECIAL GANESHA BRAND” (with pictorial elements) granted to the partners of Shankar Industries, Karnataka.
Brief Facts
The appellant, Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd., opposed the registration of Trademark Application No. 1831646 filed by K.R. Nagendra and K.N. Shobha (partners of Shankar Industries) for a label mark featuring “SPECIAL GANESHA BRAND” and device elements in respect of gram flour. The opposition was rejected by the Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai, vide order dated 11.09.2024, leading to registration of the mark as No. 1831646. The appellant preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking to set aside the Registrar’s order and cancel the registration.
The appellant claimed prior use and registration of several “GANESH”/“GANESHA” marks and argued that the impugned mark was deceptively similar. The respondents relied on their long-standing use, an earlier registration of a similar mark (No. 460314) since the 1980s, and evidence of turnover and advertisement expenses supported by a Chartered Accountant’s certificate.
Key Issues and Court’s Analysis
The Court examined the evidence of use adduced by both sides. It noted that the respondents had an earlier registered mark containing “SPECIAL GANESHA BRAND” with a pictorial device of Lord Ganesha, registered with effect from 1986 on a user claim from 1978. A rectification petition filed by the appellant against that registration was withdrawn without leave to re-file.
The respondents also placed on record a Chartered Accountant’s certificate showing turnover and advertisement expenses for the “GANESHA” mark in respect of gram flour from 1995-96 onwards. Though the appellant raised objections regarding the evidentiary value of the certificate (absence of underlying documents and affidavit), the Court held that the Registrar of Trade Marks does not conduct a full trial and the strict rules of the Evidence Act are not binding. The certificate specifically linked the figures to the mark and goods in question and was thus acceptable as evidence of use. Invoices and other documents further supported the respondents’ claim.
The appellant’s evidence showed use since 1992, which was subsequent to the respondents’ claimed and registered use. Additional documents sought to be filed by the appellant at the appellate stage, including old advertisements from 1936, were not admitted as they fell outside the pleadings.
Crucially, the Court observed that both the impugned registration and the respondents’ earlier registration carried a territorial limitation restricting use to the State of Karnataka only. Many of the appellant’s registrations were similarly limited to West Bengal. This territorial restriction provided an additional ground for invoking Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which permits registration in cases of honest concurrent use or other special circumstances.
The Court held that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Section 12 on account of their prior registration, established use, and the territorial limitations. In view of this finding, it was unnecessary to examine the issue of deceptive similarity between the rival marks in detail. Even if the additional documents were considered, no case was made out to interfere with the Registrar’s order.
Final Decision
The Madras High Court dismissed the appeal (CMA (TM) No.21 of 2025) and the connected miscellaneous petition without costs. The registration of Trademark No. 1831646 in favour of the respondents was upheld.
This judgment highlights the importance of territorial limitations in trademark registrations, the evidentiary flexibility before the Registrar, and the protective scope of Section 12 for honest concurrent users, particularly where marks incorporate common or religious elements like the name of a deity and operate in geographically limited markets.
Disclaimer: This is a brief write-up based on the judgment for reporting purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It may contain subjective summarization.
Written By:
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor
[Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #TrademarkLaw #HonestConcurrentUse #Section12TradeMarksAct #MadrasHighCourt #GANESHA trademark #IndianIPLaw #IPIndiaupdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
Suggested Title for Legal Journal:
“Madras High Court Upholds ‘GANESHA’ Trademark Registration Emphasising Honest Concurrent Use and Territorial Limitations under Section 12 of Trade Marks Act”
Tags: #Trademark #HonestConcurrentUse #Section12 #MadrasHighCourt #DeityName #TerritorialLimitation #GramFlour #IPCaselaw #TradeMarksAct1999 #RegistrarOfTradeMarks
=====
**Madras High Court Upholds Trademark Registration on Grounds of Honest Concurrent Use and Territorial Limitations**
### Introduction
Trademark disputes often arise when two businesses want to use similar names or labels for their products, especially when the name has a common or religious connection. In one such case involving marks with the word “GANESHA” for gram flour, the Madras High Court delivered an important ruling that balances the rights of long-time users while considering practical limitations on where the goods are sold. The judgment shows how courts look at real-world use of trademarks, old registrations, and special situations that allow similar marks to coexist peacefully in different areas. This decision offers valuable guidance to businesses on how prior use, honest adoption, and geographic restrictions can protect a trademark registration even when another party claims earlier rights.
### Factual Background
The dispute centred on a label mark featuring the words “SPECIAL GANESHA BRAND” along with pictorial elements, used for pure gram flour. One side was Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd., a company based in West Bengal that claimed rights over several marks containing the word “GANESH” or “GANESHA” for food products like atta and flour. The other side consisted of partners of Shankar Industries from Arsikere in Karnataka, who had been selling gram flour under their GANESHA brand for many years.
The Karnataka firm had obtained an earlier trademark registration for a similar label that included a picture of Lord Ganesha. They later applied for registration of the impugned mark without the deity image but with the same brand name. The West Bengal company opposed this application, arguing that their own marks were similar and that allowing the new registration would create confusion among customers. They claimed to have been using their GANESH marks for a long time and had several registrations in their favour or in the name of their predecessors.
The Karnataka partners defended their position by pointing to their established business in gram flour, supported by sales records, advertisement expenses certified by chartered accountants, and their existing registration. They maintained that their use was honest and had continued for decades without any major issues.
### Procedural Background
The West Bengal company filed a formal opposition before the Trade Marks Registry in Chennai against the application by the Karnataka firm. After considering evidence and arguments from both sides, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the opposition and allowed the registration of the mark in Class 30 for gram flour. Feeling aggrieved, the West Bengal company approached the Madras High Court through a civil miscellaneous appeal under the relevant provisions of the Trade Marks Act. They also filed an application to place additional old documents on record, such as newspaper advertisements and assignment deeds.
Both parties were represented by experienced counsel who presented detailed arguments. The appellant stressed the similarity of the marks and their own prior use, while the respondents highlighted their long-standing registration, continuous business activity, and the limited geographic scope of their operations.
### Reasoning
The Court carefully reviewed the evidence presented by both parties regarding the use of their respective marks. It noted that the respondents had secured an earlier trademark registration for a very similar label mark many years ago, claiming use dating back even further. Although the appellant had challenged that earlier registration through a rectification petition, the challenge was later withdrawn without permission to file it again, which weakened their position.
The respondents produced a certificate from chartered accountants showing their sales turnover and advertisement spending specifically linked to the GANESHA mark for gram flour over many years. The Court accepted this as valid evidence of use, observing that trademark proceedings before the Registrar are not strict court trials and that rigid rules of evidence do not always apply in the same way. The appellant’s own evidence of use began later than the respondents’ claimed and registered use.
A key factor in the Court’s thinking was the territorial limitation attached to both the respondents’ registrations and many of the appellant’s marks. The respondents’ marks were restricted to goods sold only within Karnataka, while the appellant’s registrations were often limited to West Bengal. This geographic separation reduced the chance of actual confusion or conflict in the market.
The Court explained that the law allows registration of similar marks in appropriate cases when there is honest concurrent use or other special circumstances that make it fair to do so. Here, the respondents’ long prior registration, continuous honest business activity in their region, and the territorial limits created such special circumstances. Because of this, the Court found it unnecessary to deeply analyse whether the marks looked deceptively similar. Even if the additional documents the appellant wanted to introduce were considered, they did not change the overall picture, as many related to periods or connections not properly pleaded earlier.
### Judgements with Complete Citation and Their Context Discussed
The Madras High Court delivered its judgment on 15 April 2026 in the matter of CMA (TM) No.21 of 2025 and connected CMP No.32352 of 2025, cited as **2026:MHC:1519**, authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.
In its reasoning, the Court discussed the scope of Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This provision empowers the Registrar to permit registration of identical or similar marks by more than one proprietor when there is honest concurrent use or other special circumstances that justify it. The judgment placed this section in the context of balancing competing interests in the marketplace, particularly where parties operate in different regions and have built their businesses honestly over time.
The Court also referred to the limited nature of proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry, noting that it does not function like a full civil trial and that the Evidence Act is not strictly binding. This context helped justify reliance on the chartered accountants’ certificate as proof of use, even without supporting affidavits or all underlying invoices for every year.
Additionally, the judgment touched upon the effect of an earlier registration and the withdrawal of a rectification petition without leave, explaining how these procedural steps impact later challenges. The territorial limitations on registrations were highlighted as creating “special circumstances” under Section 12, allowing similar marks to coexist without causing widespread confusion.
### Final Decision of Court
After weighing all aspects, the Madras High Court found no reason to interfere with the Registrar’s order that had allowed the registration. The appeal was dismissed in its entirety, and the connected miscellaneous petition for additional documents was closed. No order was passed as to costs. The registration of the impugned “SPECIAL GANESHA BRAND” mark in favour of the partners of Shankar Industries was thus upheld.
### Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment settles an important practical point in trademark law: When two parties use similar marks containing common elements like the name of a deity, and their registrations or business activities are confined to different geographic areas, the law can permit both to coexist under the principle of honest concurrent use or special circumstances. A prior registration, even if challenged and later withdrawn from contest, combined with evidence of continuous honest use and territorial restrictions, can provide strong protection against later opposition. The decision also clarifies that trademark registries have flexibility in accepting evidence of use and that courts will not readily disturb such decisions when special circumstances exist.
### Case Details
**Title:** Ganesh Consumer Products Ltd. Vs Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and G.I. & Ors.
**Date of Order:** 15.04.2026
**Case Number:** CMA (TM) No.21 of 2025 and CMP No.32352 of 2025
**Neutral Citation:** 2026:MHC:1519
**Name of Court:** High Court of Judicature at Madras
**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
**Disclaimer:** Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
**Written By:** Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
### Suggested Titles for the Article
1. Madras High Court Upholds ‘GANESHA’ Trademark Registration Based on Honest Concurrent Use and Territorial Limits
2. Territorial Restrictions and Prior Registration Save Similar Trademark in Gram Flour Dispute: Madras HC Ruling
3. Section 12 of Trade Marks Act Comes to Rescue in Honest Concurrent Use Case: Madras High Court Decision
4. Madras HC Emphasises Special Circumstances Allowing Coexistence of Similar Trademarks in Different Regions
### Suggested Tags
#TrademarkLaw #HonestConcurrentUse #Section12TradeMarksAct #MadrasHighCourt #GANESHA trademark #TerritorialLimitation #IPCaselaw #TradeMarksAct1999 #IndianIPLaw #TrademarkRegistration #IPUpdate #DeityNameTrademark #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman
### Headnote of Article
**Headnote:** In a trademark appeal concerning rival “GANESHA” marks for gram flour, the Madras High Court upheld the registration granted to the Karnataka-based respondents by invoking Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Court held that honest concurrent use, an earlier similar registration, continuous business activity, and territorial limitations restricting sales to Karnataka constituted special circumstances justifying the coexistence of similar marks. The appeal by the West Bengal company was dismissed, reinforcing that geographic separation and prior honest use can protect registrations even when marks share common elements.
