Madras High Court Allows Rectification of Trade Mark Registrations for 'WHISPER' and 'ALWAYS' Marks — Petitioner's Prior Use and Well-Known Status Established, Respondent's Registration Cancelled.

High Court: Madras High Court In Favour of Prosecution
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, The Procter & Gamble Company, a multinational corporation, filed three original petitions under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of trade mark registrations held by the first respondent, IPI India Private Limited, for the marks 'WHISPER' (Registration No. 3897775 in Class 03), 'ALWAYS' (Registration No. 4285435 in Class 05), and 'WHISPER' (Registration No. 3461733 in Class 03). The petitioner claimed to be the proprietor of the well-known marks 'WHISPER' and 'ALWAYS' used globally for sanitary napkins and other hygiene products since the 1980s, with extensive sales and advertising in India. The respondent had registered identical marks for similar goods, and the petitioner alleged that the registrations were obtained without bonafide intention to use and that the marks had not been used for five years prior to the petition. The respondent contended that the marks were not identical and that they had used the marks, but failed to provide sufficient evidence. The court analyzed the evidence, including the petitioner's prior use and well-known status, and found that the respondent's marks were identical and likely to cause confusion. The court held that the respondent had not discharged the burden of proving use and that the registrations were invalid. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and directed the removal of the impugned registrations from the register.

Headnote

A) Trade Marks - Rectification - Removal for Non-Use - Sections 47, 57, 125 Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Petitioner sought removal of respondent's registered marks 'WHISPER' and 'ALWAYS' in classes 3 and 5 on grounds of non-use and similarity to petitioner's well-known marks - Court held that the respondent failed to prove use of the marks and the marks were identical to petitioner's prior used and well-known marks - Held that the registrations are liable to be removed (Paras 1-43).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the trade mark registrations of the respondent for the marks 'WHISPER' and 'ALWAYS' in classes 3 and 5 should be removed from the register on the grounds of non-use and being identical/deceptively similar to the petitioner's well-known marks.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the petitions and directed the removal of the impugned trade mark registrations from the register.

Law Points

  • Rectification of trade mark register
  • removal of trade mark for non-use
  • well-known trade mark
  • prior use
  • deceptive similarity
  • Section 47
  • Section 57
  • Section 125 of Trade Marks Act
  • 1999
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (01) 178

O.P.(TM)Nos.48, 49 and 50 of 2024

2026-01-06

N.SENTHILKUMAR

Mr.Abishek Jenasenan, Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy for M/s,Mission Legal

The Procter & Gamble Company

IPI India Private Limited

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Rectification petitions seeking removal of trade mark registrations.

Remedy Sought

Removal of trade mark registrations No.3897775 in Class 03, No.4285435 in Class 05, and No.3461733 in Class 03 from the register.

Filing Reason

The registrations were identical to the petitioner's well-known marks and were not used by the respondent.

Issues

Whether the respondent's trade mark registrations are liable to be removed for non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Whether the respondent's marks are identical or deceptively similar to the petitioner's well-known marks, warranting rectification under Section 57.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that its marks 'WHISPER' and 'ALWAYS' are well-known and have been used since the 1980s, and the respondent's registrations were obtained without bonafide intention to use and have not been used for five years. Respondent contended that the marks are not identical and that they have used the marks, but failed to provide adequate evidence of use.

Ratio Decidendi

A trade mark registration can be removed if the registered proprietor fails to prove use of the mark for a continuous period of five years, and if the mark is identical or deceptively similar to a prior used well-known mark, causing confusion.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has established prior use and well-known status of its marks. The respondent has not discharged the burden of proving use of the impugned marks.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed three original petitions under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the respondent's trade mark registrations. The court reserved judgment on 28.11.2025 and pronounced on 06.01.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Trade Marks Act, 1999: 47, 57, 125
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case Due to Proper Application of Multiplier and Future Prospects. Deceased's income assessed at Rs.15,000 per month, multiplier of 16 applied, and 40% added for future prospects as per Pran...
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Allows Rectification of Trade Mark Registrations for 'WHISPER' and 'ALWAYS' Marks — Petitioner's Prior Use and Well-Known Status Established, Respondent's Registration Cancelled.