Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Darshan Mahesh Thatte
Respondent / Defendant
The Registrar Of Trademarks
Dispute Summary
The Bombay High Court set aside an impugned order by the Registrar of Trademarks and remanded the matter for a fresh view, citing the order's lack of reasoning and failure to address the petitioner's submissions. The petitioner, Darshan Mahesh Thatte, had applied for trademark registration, which was rejected by the Registrar. The court found that the rejection order did not provide adequate grounds for rejection and did not consider the petitioner's detailed responses to the initial objections. The court's decision allows the petitioner to re-apply for trademark registration and have their application reconsidered by the Registrar.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 0 , Cited by 0 ] Bombay High Court Darshan Mahesh Thatte vs The Registrar Of Trademarks on 29 June, 2026 48-COMMP-16-2026(1).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 16 of 2026 Darshan Mahesh Thatte Sole proprietor of The ...Petitioner Unicorn Project Limited Versus The Registrar of Trademarks ...Respondent Mr. Nikhil Dongre, for Petitioner. Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, a/w Mr.Rutwik Rao for Respondents. CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE: JUNE 29, 2026 ORDER : 1. Liberty is granted to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent. 2. Having heard the Learned Advocates for the parties at some length and having examined the record with their assistance, on the face of it, I am of the view that the Impugned Order is wholly unreasoned. 3. Prima facie there are grounds of valid concerns, particularly bearing in mind, that Unicorn Projects Limited has a registration in Class 25 and that, despite the apparent detailed reasons provided by the Petitioner, including Page 1 of 2 JUNE 29, 2026 Rutuja Borse 48-COMMP-16-2026(1).doc those relating to multiple other registrations with the Unicorn name in the mark, these facets have simply not even been dealt with in the Impugned Order. 4. The Impugned Order is rather cryptic and does not articulate the grounds on which Application for registration deserves to be rejected. At the least the reply filed by the Petitioner, which indeed sets out the contentions showing comparison with other marks also using the 'Unicorn' trademark, should have been examined and dealt with in the Impugned Order. In the absence of such consideration and analysed reasons, the Impugned Order is unsustainable. 5. In these circumstances, the Petition is allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order by way of remand to enable the Registrar to take a fresh view in the matter, squarely dealing with the submissions made by the Petitioner in response to the initial objections raised by the Registrar. With the aforesaid directions, the Suit is finally disposed of. 6. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's website. [ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] Page 2 of 2 JUNE 29, 2026 Rutuja Borse
Cancel
Update Case