Trade mark /Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Single Judges that had rejected the plaints, and restored the suits for adjudication on merits. It observed: Also Read – Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against Clone Websites Impersonating Signature Global Advertisement “This Court finds that the issues relating to the effect of the foreign registration obtained by M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC, the alleged infringement said to have

TOP STORIES SUPREME COURT & HIGH COURTS IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX Top Stories Supreme Court & High Courts IBC IPR GST/VAT/CST CUSTOMS/EXCISE/SERVICE TAX INCOME TAX OTHER TAXES COMPANY LAW/LL/MSME ARBITRATION SECURITIES LAW COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT RERA COMPETITION LAW MERGER/ACQUISITION COMPLIANCE/REGULATORY BANKING/NBFC DEBT RECOVERY LAWS DIGESTS COLUMNS LAW FIRMS INTERVIEWS PMLA/FEMA Home/IPR/Madras High Court Revives Trademark… Madras High Court Revives Trademark Dispute Over “Idhayam” Mark, Orders Joint Trial In Connected Cases Riya Rathore 11 June 2026 3:07 PM (4 mins read ) Share this The Madras High Court on 5 June revived a series of trademark infringement suits filed by the manufacturer of “Idhayam” sesame oil, holding that the unauthorised affixture of a registered trademark in India on goods intended for export constitutes a valid cause of action under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. A Division Bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the Single Judges that had rejected the plaints, and restored the suits for adjudication on merits. It observed: Also Read – Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against Clone Websites Impersonating Signature Global Advertisement “This Court finds that the issues relating to the effect of the foreign registration obtained by M/s.Meenakshi Overseas LLC, the alleged infringement said to have occurred within India by affixture of the mark on goods intended for export, the applicability of Sections 29(6), 30(2)(b) and 56 of the Trade Marks Act, and the maintainability of the suits are common and substantially interconnected questions arising in all the connected proceedings,” the Bench observed. Also Read – ‘Bare Possibility Of Confusion’ Enough In Pharma Marks: Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of ‘ACIPROX’ The dispute concerns the “Idhayam” mark, which V.V.V. and Sons has used since 1986 for gingelly oil in India. The plaintiff alleged that Meenakshi Overseas LLC and its job-workers in Coimbatore and Virudhunagar affixed the mark in India on snacks and edible oils meant for export to the United States. The plaintiff further alleged that the foreign entity obtained its US trademark registration by falsely declaring that the word “Idhayam” had no meaning in any language, even though it is a common Tamil word meaning “heart”. Also Read – Karnataka High Court Rejects Trademark Suit After Finding Reliefs Were Undervalued To Avoid Commercial Court Advertisement The defendants relied on their US trademark registration and contended that the plaintiff suppressed earlier unsuccessful proceedings before American courts and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. They also argued that no infringement occurred in India because they marked the goods as “Export Pack” and shipped them exclusively outside the country. The Single Judges rejected the plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that no cause of action arose and that the plaintiff suppressed material facts. Also Read – Karnataka High Court Remands Trademark Suit, Sets Aside Return Of Plaint For Non-Examination Of Specified Value The Division Bench, however, held that the court, while deciding an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, must confine itself to the plaint averments and must not examine the defence or evidence of the defendants. It held that the plaints clearly alleged that the impugned mark was affixed within India and that such allegations, on their face, constitute infringement under Section 29(6) of the Trade Marks Act. On suppression, the Court held that it must determine issues of alleged concealment only on evidence and cannot conclusively decide them at the stage of Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless the plaint itself reveals such suppression. The Bench further held that it must apply the bar under Section 11 CPC only when earlier proceedings involve the same issues between the same parties and reach final adjudication by a competent court. Accordingly, the High Court allowed all appeals, set aside the orders rejecting the plaints, and restored the suits for trial. It directed the Single Judge to frame appropriate issues and conduct a joint or simultaneous trial to avoid conflicting findings. For V.V.V And Sons Edible Oils: Senior Advocate P.S. Raman, assisted by Advocates V.Anand, B.Raveendran and S.Babu For Meenakshi Overseas: Senior Advocate P.V.Balasubramaniam, assisted by Advocate Preetha Natarajan Tags Madras High CourtJustice P. VelmuruganJustice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi Case Title : M/S.V.V.V And Sons Edible Oils Ltd. v. M/S.Meenakshi Overseas LLC Case Number : O.S.A.No.63 of 2019 & connected matters CITATION : 2026 LLBiz HC (MAD) 140 To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE Next Story Similar Posts Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Against Clone Websites Impersonating Signature Global The Delhi High Court on 29 May granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of real estate developer Signature Global (India) Limited and restrained the operators of multiple clone websites and social media accounts from impersonating the company and defrauding homebuyers. A Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh held: “Having heard learned counsel… ‘Bare Possibility Of Confusion’ Enough In Pharma Marks: Bombay High Court Restrains Use Of ‘ACIPROX’ The Bombay High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Alkem Laboratories. It has restrained Numen Pharma Private Limited from manufacturing, selling, or marketing pharmaceutical products under the trademark ‘ACIPROX’, holding it to be phonetically similar to Alkem’s registered mark ‘ALCIPRO’. Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, on June 8,… Karnataka High Court Rejects Trademark Suit After Finding Reliefs Were Undervalued To Avoid Commercial Court The Karnataka High Court has rejected a trademark infringement and passing-off suit filed by a Raichur-based rice trader after holding that the plaintiff had deliberately undervalued the suit reliefs and instituted the dispute before a civil court instead of the commercial court.Justice Ravi V Hosmani passed the order on June 1 while allowing a… Karnataka High Court Remands Trademark Suit, Sets Aside Return Of Plaint For Non-Examination Of Specified Value The Karnataka High Court has recently set aside an order returning a trademark infringement suit to a civil court. It held that the Commercial Court had failed to examine the value of the plaintiff’s claimed trademark rights before concluding that it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju observed that the Commercial Court had… Delhi High Court Refuses To Lift Injunction Against KS Agro’s Rice Packaging Over Similarity To Zarda King The Delhi High Court has refused to lift an interim injunction restraining KS Agro Impex from selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in packaging alleged to imitate GRM Foodkraft’s ‘Zarda King’ trade dress. The court held that KS Agro’s packaging was deceptively similar to GRM’s. It further held that GRM had established a prima facie case of passing… Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Acharya Manish Against AI-Generated Fake Endorsements The Delhi High Court has granted temporary protection to the personality rights of Manish Grover, popularly known as ‘Acharya Manish’ or ‘Chikitsaguru,’ after finding a prima facie case that unknown persons used artificial intelligence to create fake endorsements of health products using his voice and videos. Granting an ad-interim injunction on… Delhi High Court Orders Removal Of Fake IndiaMart Websites, Blocks WhatsApp Accounts The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of IndiaMart Intermesh Limited against unidentified persons allegedly operating fake websites, WhatsApp accounts, and bank accounts using the company’s INDIAMART marks. The Court also directed the takedown of specified URLs and blocking of identified WhatsApp accounts. Justice Jyoti… Delhi High Court Finds ‘Konaflex’ Deceptively Similar To ‘Koanaflex’, Grants Injunction To PVC Pipe Maker The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction restraining a Jaunpur-based manufacturer of water storage tanks from using the mark “Konaflex” on its products, finding it deceptively similar to the “Koanaflex” mark and logo used by Modern Pipe Industries. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order on May 29 while rejecting the defendant’s… Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Social Media Posts Alleging Amul Supplies Cow Meat The Delhi High Court has ordered the takedown of social media posts claiming that Amul supplies cow meat, holding that the content was prima facie disparaging and appeared designed to provoke public sentiment against the dairy cooperative. Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the posts and videos demonstrated a deliberate attempt to associate the… Supreme Court Permits Sale Of ₹40 Crore ELITO Battery Inventory, Partly Modifies Exide Trade Dress Injunction The Supreme Court has partly modified a Calcutta High Court injunction granted in favor of Exide Industries Ltd in its trade dress dispute with Amara Raja Energy and Mobility Ltd., allowing the sale of ELITO-branded batteries already lying with distributors, franchisees, and retailers. The injunction granted by a single judge bench had been upheld… Bengaluru Court Dismisses US Non-Profit Pathways Foundation’s ₹2 Crore Copyright Suit Against App Developer A Bengaluru commercial court has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by Chicago-based non-profit Pathways Foundation against Indian app developer Arpit Roy. The court held that the foundation failed to prove infringement of its copyrighted resources and videos and rejected its claim for ₹2 crore in punitive damages. Judge Arjun S. Mallur… About Us Contact Us Advertise with us Careers Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions Top Stories INCOME TAX MSME Know the Law Compliance Other Taxes IBC PMLA & FEMA Competition Law Law Firms ARBITRATION Supreme Court & High Courts IPR Company Law Regulatory Interviews Columns Commerical Court Act GST / VAT / CST LLP Securities Law Debt Recovery Laws Banking/NBFC Custom & Excise & Service Tax RERA Compliance Digests Merger and Acquisition 2026 © All Rights Reserved @LiveLaw Media Pvt Ltd Powered By – Blink CMS We use cookies for analytics, advertising and to improve our site. You agree to our use of cookies by continuing to use our site. To know more, see our Cookie Policy and Cookie Settings.Ok

https://www.livelawbiz.com/ipr/madras-high-court-restores-idhayam-trademark-suits-rules-affixing-mark-in-india-for-export-is-a-triable-cause-of-action-537512