Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA
RPG Enterprises Limited – Appellant
Versus
RPG Industrial Products Pvt Ltd. – Respondent
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 og
 |  |
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.
The court established that the respondent's trademark 'GREEN DIAMOND' was a dishonest adoption of the petitioner's trademark 'DIAMOND', leading to confusion and passing off, warranting cancellation o....
The court emphasized that prior user rights prevail over subsequent registrations, particularly when malafide intentions to misappropriate goodwill are evident. The removal of confusingly similar tra....
Prior adoption and user rights establish entitlement to trademark protection, and their absence undermines claims for rectification, regardless of phonetic similarity.
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
Dishonest adoption of identical abbreviated mark in same field, without bona fides explanation and false prior use claim, defeated by prior global/India rights via registrations, franchises, domains,....
Registration of a trademark may be cancelled if it is found to be deceptively similar to a prior registered mark and has not been used for five years, reflecting both private and public interest.
Registration validity sustained if distinctiveness established over time despite claims of descriptiveness.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act to determine the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic similarity and the priority....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
