C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 & 24 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 and 24 of 2025 AND C.M.P.Nos.21263 and 21281 of 2025 ACE Foods Private Limited C-30, Industrial Estate, Yeyyadi Mangalore 575 008, Karnataka, India info@acefoodspl.com sudheendra.kamath@acefoodspl.com .. Appellant in both C.M.As. Vs. 1.The Registrar of Trade Marks O/o.the Trade Mark Registry IP Office Building, G.S.T. Road Guindy, Chennai 600 032 Email : tmrchennai@nic.in 2.Modern Foods Enterprises Private Limited 8th Floor, Wing No.3 AIPL Business Club Sector 62, Gurugram, Gurgaon Haryana 122 002 nareshkumar@grupobimbo.com .. Respondents in both C.M.As. C.M.A.(TM) No.23 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks in interlocutory petition filed in opposition No.993163 against application No.4015735 in Class 30. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 & 24 of 2025 C .M. A . (TM) No. 2 4 of 2025 : Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks in interlocutory petition filed in opposition No.993162 against application No.4015734 in Class 30. For Appellant in both C.M.As : Mr.Rajesh Ramananathan For Respondents in both C.M.As : Mr.M.Karthikeyan for R1 : Mr.Arun C.Mohan for R2 C O M M O N J U D G M E N T Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2.These appeals have been filed against the common order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the 1st respondent, allowing the interlocutory petitions filed by the 2nd respondent, who is the opponent and consequently, the additional documents filed by the 2nd respondent were taken on record. As a consequence of the order, the opposition proceedings were also closed at the evidence stage. Thereafter, the matter was posted for final arguments. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 & 24 of 2025 3.Even when these appeals were admitted by this Court on 28.08.2025, this Court found that the appellant was not provided with an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence, which was filed after nearly four years after the evidence under Rule 47 was received. Hence, the appeals were primarily admitted, after finding that there was violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant was denied a fair opportunity. 4.During the pendency of these appeals, memo came to be filed on the side of the 2nd respondent, for amending the name of the 2nd respondent as “Bimbo Bakeries India Pvt. Ltd.”. For those memo’s, objections were filed by the learned counsel for the appellant by objecting to the change of name of the 2nd respondent in the cause title. For those objections, a reply was also filed by the 2nd respondent. 5.Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that steps have been taken to effect the change of name of the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent. It is not necessary for this Court to go into this issue and it has to be considered independently by the 1st respondent. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 & 24 of 2025 6.In the considered view of this Court, the above issue regarding the change of name, need not be gone into in these appeals. The fact remains that the appellant has been denied an opportunity to rebut the additional evidence that was sought to be brought in by the 2nd respondent. In view of the same, the common order passed by the 1st respondent dated 04.07.2025, is liable to be interfered with by this Court, on that ground alone. If the common order is interfered with, the evidence will automatically be reopened and the parties can agitate before the 1st respondent, in the manner known to law. It is also made clear that all the issues are left open and the same can be raised by the parties before the 1st respondent. 7.In the light of the above discussion, the impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 04.07.2025, is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent is directed to re-open the proceedings at the stage of evidence and first, grant an opportunity to the appellant to rebut the additional evidence, that is sought to be brought in by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, the proceedings shall be continued, in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the proceedings are pending for quite a long time, there shall be a direction to the 1st respondent to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 & 24 of 2025 Both these appeals are allowed in the above terms. No costs. Connected C.M.Ps. are closed. 08.01.2026 gya Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 & 24 of 2025 N. ANAND VENKATESH, J. gya C.M.A.(TM) Nos.23 & 24 of 2025 08.01.2026 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis