The archived Apex Law Chamber article reports a Patan High Court appeal by Tirth Agro Technology Private Limited concerning its SHAKTIMAN trademark application.
Background reported in the article
Tirth Agro applied for SHAKTIMAN under application number 44084 in Class 7. The Department of Industry refused the application after citing Mahindra and Mahindra Limited's earlier SAKTIMAAN application, number 33903.
Reported outcome
According to the article, the Patan High Court set aside the refusal because the Department had not conducted or recorded a sufficiently reasoned examination and had relied on a subordinate opinion without adequate analysis.
Practical implications
Administrative trademark decisions should identify the relevant marks, goods, evidence and legal test. Applicants challenging a refusal should preserve the full prosecution record and distinguish between a direction to reconsider, permission to publish and final registration.
Verification status
Confirm the certified decision, case number, date and operative direction before citing the reported reasoning or outcome.
Related services and resources
Primary and official sources
- Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act, 1965 – WIPO Lex — World Intellectual Property Organization
- Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act, 2022 (1965) — Nepal Law Commission
- Industrial Property Bulletins — Department of Industry, Government of Nepal
Share this note
