Summary
In the case of Mohamed Yusuf vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the Madras High Court set aside the Registrar’s refusal to register the ‘MISS MANGO’ device mark under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The court held that ‘MISS MANGO’ was neither identical nor deceptively similar to the earlier word mark ‘MANGO’ and that both visual and conceptual distinctions removed any likelihood of confusion.
Background
Trademark Refusal under Section 11(1)
Mohamed Yusuf applied to register ‘MISS MANGO’ as a device mark under Class 25 for clothing, footwear, and headgear. The Registrar objected under Section 11(1), citing an earlier word mark ‘MANGO’. After the appellant’s reply failed to satisfy the Registrar, the application was refused on the ground that the mark was identical to the cited mark. The appellant appealed to the High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.
Questions Before the Court
- Is ‘MISS MANGO’ identical or deceptively similar to the earlier registered word mark ‘MANGO’?
- Could the use of ‘MISS MANGO’ result in confusion among consumers under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act?
- Can a generic word like ‘MANGO’ be exclusively registered as a trademark for clothing?
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Appellant (Mohamed Yusuf)
- The mark ‘MISS MANGO’ is a device mark with a prefix and visual styling, making it different from the cited mark.
- The prefix ‘MISS’ and the overall presentation distinguish it from ‘MANGO’.
- The marks are not phonetically or conceptually identical.
- No actual confusion has been reported in the market.
Respondent (Registrar of Trade Marks)
- The applied-for mark includes the word ‘MANGO’, which is already registered for similar goods.
- Registration must be refused under Section 11(1) due to potential consumer confusion.
Court’s Analysis of Section 11(1) Objection
The court began by noting that the cited trademark was a word mark, while the applicant’s was a device mark. According to the court, two conditions must be met under Section 11(1) for refusal:
1. The marks must be identical or similar.
2. The similarity must be likely to cause confusion.
The court stated that both conditions were not satisfied in this case. It also questioned the registrability of ‘MANGO’ as a standalone trademark due to its generic character.
The court held that the device mark ‘MISS MANGO’ was visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct from ‘MANGO’. The addition of ‘MISS’ made it sufficiently different to avoid confusion. Since both identity and likelihood of confusion were absent, the Registrar’s refusal could not be upheld.
Findings
The court allowed the appeal. It set aside the Registrar’s refusal dated 12.12.2024 and directed that the application for the device mark ‘MISS MANGO’ be processed according to law.
Relevant Paras
“In the first place, it is not known as to why such a generic word ‘MANGO’ was registered as a word mark.” (para 5) “The appellant is seeking a device mark ‘MISS MANGO’, which is clearly distinguishable and not identical to the cited mark.” (para 5) “Section 11(1) of the Act will come into play only where there is an identity with the earlier trademark and this similarity will give rise to confusion on the part of the end users.” (para 5) “Both these ingredients are not satisfied in this case and hence, the impugned order passed by the respondent as if the device mark sought by appellant is objectionable under Section 11(1) of the Act is unsustainable.” (para 5)
Case Citation
Mohamed Yusuf v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.M.A. (TM) No.28 of 2025, decided on 08 January 2026, Madras High Court.
Indian Kanoon link: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/62476839/ (Visited on 5 February 2026)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog. Views are personal.