A well-known trademark is entitled to protection against identical and similar marks, as well as dissimilar goods, especially when registration is obtained in bad faith.

JUDGMENT :

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

1. The present rectification petition has been filed seeking removal of trade mark registration no. 2778255 for the mark (“impugned registration”) in Class 23, registered in the name of respondent no. l, i.e., RPG Industrial Products Pvt. Ltd.

2. The petitioner contends that it is an aggrieved party under Sections 47/57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and thus, prays that the present petition be allowed and the impugned registration be rectified from the Register of Trade Marks.

3. The facts as canvassed in the petition, are as follows:

3.1 The petitioner is a multi-group conglomerate which consists of various companies operating under the parent organisation. These companies, identified as RPG Group Companies use “RPG logo” and trade mark “RPG” for which permission is granted by way of a license for use of the RPG logo and trademark as a part of its corporate identity/business/trademark in relation to promotional and publicity material.

3.2 The acronym “RPG” stands for the initials of Sh. R. P. Goenka, founder of the RPG Group and a renowned industrialist widely respected by people from all walks of life. The RPG Group Companies have been using the said l ogo and the letters “RPG” which forms an integral part of almost all the businesses that have been undertaken by the RPG Group Companies.

3.3 The petitioner's history can be traced back to 1979 and over the years, it has diversified into various business fields with primary areas of businesses being tyres, infrastructure, information technology, pharmaceuticals, energy, senior care, e-commerce and plantations.

3.4 The petitioner has honestly adopted the distinctive and unique trade mark RPG, which also serves as the trading name/house mark of the petitioner. Keeping in mind the heritage of the brand RPG, the petitioner has adopted the trade mark in conjunction with the core word mark “RPG”. Further, the marks “RPG” and have been used for a very long period of time and have, as of date, created an indelible association in the minds of the general public.

3.5 The petitioner holds various trademark registrations for its RPG Marks, which are tabulated as under: 

3.6 The petitioner also has a presence on the internet and maintains active websites at http://www.rpggroup.com/ , http://www.rpglifesciences.com/ , http://raychemrpg.com/ , http://www.rpgcables.com/ , http://www.kecrpg.com , http://www.saetowers.com , http://www.harrisonsmalayalam.com , https://www.ceat.com/ , https://www.ceatspecialty.com/ and http://www.zensar.com/ . The said websites clearly display the RPG Marks and the goods and services which are marketed and offered by the petitioner and are accessible in the whole of India and worldwide, thus, increasing awareness of the petitioner's RPG Marks.

3.7 The petitioner is also the registered copyright owner of vide copyright registration Certificate No. A-49373/88CO issued by the Deputy Registrar of Copyright since 30^th June, 1988 and has been using the same at least since 1987.

3.8 The petitioner was made aware of the use of the identical trade name of respondent no.1 as that of the petitioner. The petitioner sent a cease and desist notice dated 06^th October, 2017 to respondent no.1. The respondent has failed to reply to the said "cease and desist" notice, till date. Since no response was received from respondent no.1, the petitioner believed that the dispute had been resolved and no further action was taken. However, in the month of August, 2018, attention of the petitioner was drawn to the Registration No. 2778255 in the name of the respondent no.1, while conducting search of the records of the Trade Mark Registry.

3.9 The search revealed that, respondent no.1 has wrongfully obtained a registration for the impugned mark, which entirely incorporates the RPG Marks of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended as follows:

4.1 The impugned registration granted in the name of responde