ENTERO HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS LIMITED vs REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS TRADE MARKS DIVISION INTELLECTURAL

Judgment text excerpt

7-COMMP-L-27100-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (L) NO. 27100 OF 2025 Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited ...Petitioner Versus Registrar Of Trade Marks ...Respondent _______ Mr. Kamod Mr. Jay Zaveri a/w. Ms. Kshamaya Daniel i/b Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Petitioner. Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh a/w. Ms. Shilpa Gaikwad h/f Mr. Anjani Kumar Singh, for the Respondent. _______ CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J RESERVED ON : 4th MARCH 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd MARCH 2026 JUDGMENT 1. The captioned Petition impugns an order dated 19th May 2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Respondent, i.e., Registrar of Trade Marks, rejecting the Petitioner’s Application No. 6072440 (“Subject Application”) for registration of the mark ‘ENTERO’, ‘ ’ (“Subject Mark”) as a device mark under Class 5. Page 1 of 14 Areeb 7-COMMP-L-27100-2025 2. However, before considering the rival contentions, it is useful for context to set out the following facts, viz. i. The Petitioner filed the Subject Application on 18th August 2023, pursuant to which a Preliminary Examination Report dated 22nd November 2023 (“Examination Report”) was issued by the Respondent. ii. The Examination Report raised an objection under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”), i.e., that the subject mark was identical and/or deceptively similar to an earlier registered mark, i.e., “EnteroGG” (“the cited mark”). iii. The Petitioner then filed a detailed Reply dated 2nd December 2023 to the Examination Report, along with case law, in which the Petitioner inter alia set out (a) the Petitioner's honest and concurrent use of the subject mark and (b) the fact that the cited mark had never been used. iv. A hearing