Mohamed Yusuf applied to register \u2018MISS MANGO\u2019 as a device mark under Class 25 for clothing, footwear, and headgear. The Registrar objected under Section 11(1), citing an earlier word mark \u2018MANGO\u2019. After the appellant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
The court began by noting that the cited trademark was a word mark, while the applicant\u2019s was a device mark. According to the court, two conditions must be met under Section 11(1) for refusal:<\/p>\n
1. The marks must be identical or similar.<\/p>\n
2. The similarity must be likely to cause confusion.<\/p>\n
The court stated that both conditions were not satisfied in this case. It also questioned the registrability of \u2018MANGO\u2019 as a standalone trademark due to its generic character.
\nThe court held that the device mark \u2018MISS MANGO\u2019 was visually, structurally, and phonetically distinct from \u2018MANGO\u2019. The addition of \u2018MISS\u2019 made it sufficiently different to avoid confusion. Since both identity and likelihood of confusion were absent, the Registrar\u2019s refusal could not be upheld.<\/p>\n
The court allowed the appeal. It set aside the Registrar\u2019s refusal dated 12.12.2024 and directed that the application for the device mark \u2018MISS MANGO\u2019 be processed according to law.<\/p>\n
\u201cIn the first place, it is not known as to why such a generic word \u2018MANGO\u2019 was registered as a word mark.\u201d (para 5) \u201cThe appellant is seeking a device mark \u2018MISS MANGO\u2019, which is clearly distinguishable and not identical to the cited mark.\u201d (para 5) \u201cSection 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.\u201d (para 5) \u201cBoth 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.\u201d (para 5)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Case Citation<\/h5>\n
Mohamed Yusuf v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.M.A. (TM) No.28 of 2025, decided on 08 January 2026, Madras High Court.<\/p>\n