Trademark owners often assume that once a mark is registered, the hardest part is over. In India, that assumption can be dangerously misleading. A recent judgment of the Madras High Court demonstrates how procedural neglect both by applicants and by the Trademarks Office (TMO) can result in the cancellation of an otherwise valuable trademark, even years after registration.

The dispute arose between competing manufacturers using the TOOFAN and THUFAN for electrical fans. The respondent had obtained registrations for THUFAN in Tamil and Telugu languages, while the appellant already owned an earlier registration for TOOFAN in English.

The registrations were challenged on the ground that they were obtained in violation of Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002 which governs trademarks filed in languages other than English or Hindi.

” 33. Transliteration and translation. – Where a trade mark contains a word or words in scripts other than Hindi or English, there shall be endorsed on the application form and the additional representations thereof, a sufficient transliteration and translation to the satisfaction of the Registrar of each such word in English or in Hindi and every such endorsement shall state the language to which the word belongs and shall be signed by the applicant or his agent.”

The Court cancelled the registrations, holding that the defect went to the root of the registration process.

Rule 33 requires that where a trademark contains words in language other than English or Hindi, the application must include a transliteration, a translation, and a clear identification of the language. This requirement exists to allow the public and prior rights holders to understand the mark when it is advertised in the Trade Marks Journal and to meaningfully oppose it if required.

In this case, the Trade Marks Office accepted and advertised the applications without publishing the transliteration or translation. The Court held that such an advertisement defeats the very purpose of publication and is no advertisement in the eye of law.

This judgment highlights a recurring systemic issue at the Trade Marks Office, where procedural lapses are repeatedly flagged by courts but rarely corrected in practice. For trademark owners, the lesson is clear: filing a trademark application is not merely submitting forms. It is laying the foundation of a legal asset meant to last decades.