Back
Basant Lal's 'L&K' Mark Wins as Cancels 'LNK' Trademark for Identical Goods
The has ordered the cancellation of the registered trademark "LNK" owned by , holding that it is to "L&K", the dominant component of Basant Lal's prior registered device marks for sanitary products. Justice Jyoti Singh allowed the cancellation petition and directed the to rectify the register within eight weeks.
A Legacy Mark Faces a Phonetic Imitator
Basant Lal, proprietor of the "L&K Waterman Since 1948" brand, has been manufacturing sanitary materials, metal taps, cocks, and allied products under the "L&K" mark since 1948, with registration dating back to 2005. His device marks—featuring "L&K" prominently—have acquired substantial goodwill, evidenced by exponential sales, brand endorsements from Bollywood celebrities, and a significant social media presence. The brand also received the
"Make in India Icon ICOL Award."
In contrast, obtained registration for the word mark "LNK" in Class 11 on , for identical sanitary products. Basant Lal challenged this registration under , arguing that "LNK" is visually and phonetically nearly identical to the "L&K" portion of his marks, creating a among consumers.
Respondent Stays Silent as Petitioner Presses Case
, despite being served, chose not to contest the petition. The court set the respondent on , and no steps were taken to set aside that order. The , represented by Central Government Standing Counsel, argued that the petitioner's device mark must be viewed as a whole, citing —which provides that registration of a composite mark confers rights only to the mark as a whole—and contended that the petitioner cannot claim a monopoly over the letters "L&K" in isolation.
Trumps
The court rejected the Registrar's argument, relying on the settled principle that while marks must be compared as a whole, the is not antithetical to the . It cited precedents from its own Division Bench in M/s South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr. (2014) and the 's recent judgment in Pernard Ricard India Private Limited and Another v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025) to affirm that the dominant feature of a composite mark can be protected separately.
Justice Jyoti Singh observed that "L&K" is the dominant part of all of Basant Lal's registered device marks. Comparing it with the impugned mark, she found that "LNK" is both visually and phonetically. Since the rival goods were identical—sanitary products in Class 11—the court held that the registration violated , which bars registration of marks likely to cause confusion or association with an earlier similar mark.
Key Observations
"On a bare perusal of the device marks of the Petitioner, it is evident that L&K is the dominant part of the marks and in fact, L&K is a part of all registered marks of the Petitioner."
"Respondent No. 1’s registered mark LNK is
, visually and phonetically, to the dominant part of Petitioner’s registered device mark and the rival goods are identical. Registration of the impugned mark thus violates
."
Court Orders Rectification to Purity of Register
Allowing the petition, Justice Jyoti Singh cancelled the registration of trademark "LNK" (No. 3373300) in Class 11. She directed the to remove the entry from the register and complete the rectification within eight weeks, emphasizing the need to maintain the . The decision underscores the importance of protecting the dominant elements of and serves as a warning against adopting phonetically and visually similar word marks for identical goods.
