- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18752 MFA No. 1393 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1393 OF 2023 (IPR) BETWEEN: M/S. JSF HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO 6-A, 1ST PHASE, INDUSTRIAL AREA, KUMBALGODE, BANGALORE, PIN - 560 060. KARNATAKA, INDIA. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. MR.JOHN SIMON. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JOSE.K.SEBASTIAN., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SEBASTIAN.M.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS TRADEMARK REGISTRY, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE, BOUDHIK SAMPADA BHAWAN, ANTOP HILL, S.M.ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 037. 2. SENIOR EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BUILDING, GST ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI - 600 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.PRAMOD., CGC) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18752 MFA No. 1393 of 2023 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT Sri.Jose K.Sebastain., counsel on behalf of Sri.Sabastain.M.A., for the appellant and Sri.B.Pramod., CGC for the respondents have appeared in person. 2. Though the matter is listed today for orders with the consent of counsel for the respective parties it is heard. 3. The order dated:24.11.2022 passed by the Senior Examiner (Registrar) of Trademarks is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as setout in the Memorandum of appeal. 4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the appeal papers with care. 5. The appellant filed an application before the first respondent under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for obtaining statutory protection for the Trade Mark 'PREMIUM GOLD'. The second respondent passed an order and thereby rejected the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:18752 MFA No. 1393 of 2023 application. The impugned order is furnished and the same is marked as Annexure-I. A careful perusal of the same would reflect that except for saying that the mark applied for registration is objectionable under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, reasons are not assigned for the refusal. The Registrar ought to have passed a detailed order by considering the material evidence on record. This has not been done. Hence, this Court deems it proper to set-aside the impugned order and direct the Registrar to reconsider the application afresh in accordance with the law within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. After reconsidering the application the Registrar is directed to pass a fresh order. The order dated:24.11.2022 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-I is set-aside. 6. Resultantly, the appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8