Acme Universal Safezone 9 has four pending trademark oppositions

Acme Universal Safezone 9 Private Limited has four pending trademark oppositions before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, involving applications in classes 09 and 25. Acme Universal Safezone 9 filed counter-statements in three matters, but disclosed that it was yet to file one for application 6052127, following an opposition notice received on January 31, 2025.

Why does Acme Universal Safezone 9 have four pending trademark oppositions?

Acme Universal Safezone 9 has four pending trademark oppositions because four separate applications for ACME-related marks have been challenged under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The matters concern applications 5533060, 5533061, 6052127 and 6052128, and each was pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, as disclosed in the Draft Red Herring Prospectus.

The four matters have different application numbers, opponents and opposition numbers. Amit Garg opposed application 5533060 for “ACME” in class 09 through opposition hearing number 1212471. Anil Kumar opposed application 5533061 for “ACME” in class 25 through opposition number 1235648, and separately opposed application 6052128 for “ACME” in class 25 through opposition number 1294898.

Acme Lab Instruments Private Limited opposed application 6052127 in class 09. The heading in the disclosure calls application 6052127 an “Acme Safety Shoes” device, while the body describes it as a device for “acme”; both descriptions identify application 6052127. This difference in wording does not change the application number or the disclosure that the matter was pending.

What has Acme Universal Safezone 9 said in response to the ACME challenges?

Acme Universal Safezone 9 has denied the allegations in the three matters for which it disclosed counter-statements and asserted prior adoption and use of “ACME” since 1973. A counter-statement is the applicant’s formal response to an opposition. In the August 2, 2023 counter-statement for application 5533060, Acme Universal Safezone 9 also cited statutory registrations, goodwill and reputation associated with “ACME”.

For application 5533061, Acme Universal Safezone 9 filed a counter-statement dated November 17, 2023. It said that filing asserted prior adoption, long-standing use and statutory rights in “ACME”, contested Anil Kumar’s opposition on merits, and sought dismissal of the opposition. The prospectus recorded the class 25 matter as pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai.

For application 6052128, Acme Universal Safezone 9 filed a counter-statement on May 25, 2024. It said the filing asserted prior adoption and continuous use of “ACME” since 1973, along with multiple registrations in India, and sought both dismissal of Anil Kumar’s opposition and registration of the class 25 application.

The stated use of “ACME” since 1973 is Acme Universal Safezone 9’s position in its disclosed counter-statements, not an outcome determined by the Registrar. The Draft Red Herring Prospectus gives no hearing date, resolution timetable or final decision for applications 5533060, 5533061 or 6052128.

Which Acme Universal Safezone 9 application lacks a counter-statement?

Application 6052127 is the only one of the four for which Acme Universal Safezone 9 said it was yet to file a counter-statement. Acme Lab Instruments Private Limited’s opposition notice, numbered 11964531, was received on January 31, 2025 and concerns the class 09 device application before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai.

Acme Lab Instruments Private Limited claims prior adoption and continuous use since 2012 of a registered class 09 trademark under registration number 2863754. According to the disclosure, it alleges that Acme Universal Safezone 9’s mark is identical or deceptively similar, was adopted dishonestly, and should be refused under Sections 9, 11 and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The absence of a disclosed counter-statement for application 6052127 differentiates it from applications 5533060, 5533061 and 6052128, which have filing dates of August 2, 2023, November 17, 2023 and May 25, 2024, respectively. The prospectus does not state why a counter-statement had not been filed, and it does not disclose an outcome for the January 2025 opposition.

The disclosed competing-use positions also differ by date. Acme Universal Safezone 9 says it has used “ACME” since 1973, while Acme Lab Instruments Private Limited claims continuous use of its registered class 09 mark since 2012. The prospectus does not state how the Registrar will assess those claims or the alleged similarity of the marks.

How are the four trademark matters treated as material litigation?

Acme Universal Safezone 9 listed the four trademark cases as other pending material litigations filed by the company, although no monetary claim was disclosed for any opposition. Its board adopted a Materiality Policy on January 19, 2026 that includes matters with unquantifiable liability where the outcome may materially affect business, operations, performance, prospects, financial position or reputation.

The policy’s quantified threshold was Rs 23.71 lakh, the lowest of three measures. The other two measures were Rs 4.12 crore, representing 2% of turnover, and Rs 1.06 crore, representing 2% of net worth; the Rs 23.71 lakh measure represented 5% of the average absolute profit or loss after tax for the preceding three annual restated financial statements.

The policy also covers similar cases whose aggregate amount exceeds the applicable threshold, even if an individual matter does not. Since the trademark opposition section gives no quantified claim or financial liability for applications 5533060, 5533061, 6052127 or 6052128, their disclosure rests on the policy’s separate treatment of unquantifiable matters.

The litigation section separately recorded no pending criminal proceedings against Acme Universal Safezone 9 and no other pending material litigation against it in the stated categories. It also reported three indirect-tax proceedings involving Rs 85 lakh, which are separate from the four trademark opposition proceedings filed by Acme Universal Safezone 9.

Conclusion

Acme Universal Safezone 9’s trademark position is contested across four separate applications rather than a single “ACME” filing. The company has disclosed counter-statements in three matters and a consistent claim of use since 1973, but all four matters remained pending and application 6052127 had no counter-statement filed as of the Draft Red Herring Prospectus.

The next disclosed matter to watch is any counter-statement or order in application 6052127 after Acme Lab Instruments Private Limited’s January 31, 2025 notice. Decisions or procedural updates for applications 5533060, 5533061 and 6052128 would also be material because the prospectus provides no hearing dates, timetable or final registration outcome for any of the four applications.