Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT BANSAL, J
ROPIN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MR. NIPUN GUPTA – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. The present rectification petitions have been filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification/ cancellation of registrations of the impugned mark ‘RAPIDO’ the details of which are as follows:
i. Trade Mark No. 4459206 in class 39 dated 2nd March, 2020.
ii. Trade Mark No. 4459194 in class 12 dated 2nd March, 2020.
iii. Trade Mark No. 4459197 in class 25 dated 2nd March, 2020.
iv. Trade Mark No. 4459208 in class 42 dated 2nd March, 2020.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE PETITIONS
2. Notices in the present petitions were issued to the respondents on 31st May, 2024. The respondent no.1, which is the contesting respondent, was served through ordinary mode on 5th July, 2024 and through speed post on 1st August, 2024.
3. Despite service, neither an appearance has been made on behalf of the respondent no.1, nor did he file any reply to the petitions.
4. Accordingly, the right of the respondent no.1 to file reply to the petitions was closed vide the Order of Joint Registrar dated 4th December, 2024 and the respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte.
5. Even today, none appears on behalf of respondent no.1.
BRIEF FACTS
6. The petitioner was incorporat
Prior use and established reputation of a trademark can lead to cancellation of later registrations that may cause consumer confusion.
The registration of a trade mark that is identical or similar to an existing mark is liable to be cancelled if it is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
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 ruled that the fraudulent registration of a trademark can be annulled if the prior user establishes confusion and lack of bona fide intention by the registrant.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of various provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 in determining the similarity of trademarks, dishonest adop....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the likelihood of confusion and deception of consumers due to the adoption of a deceptively similar trademark, leading to the cancellation of th....
Deceptive similarity of trade marks can lead to cancellation of registrations under the Trade Marks Act, prioritizing the rights of prior users over subsequent registrations.
Well-known trademarks require a higher degree of protection against deceptively similar marks to prevent consumer confusion.
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
