Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.HARI SHANKAR, OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
Landmark Crafts Limited – Appellant
Versus
Romil Gupta Trading A.S. Sohan Lal Gupta – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
A. The lis
1. The device mark [“the subject mark” hereinafter] was registered in favour of Respondent 1 [“the respondent” hereinafter] in Class 6 for self-tapping metal screws and self drilling screws, vide Registration No. 3986970, under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 [“the Act” hereinafter]. The appellant applied, under Section 57 of the Act, for rectification of the register by removal of the subject mark therefrom. By order dated 15 December 2022, the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks [“the Dy RTM” hereinafter] allowed the application and cancelled the registration of the subject mark. Aggrieved thereby the respondent appealed to this Court by way of CA (Comm IPD-TM) 1/2023, under Section 91 of the Act. The appeal stands allowed by a learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 14 May 2025. The appellant is in appeal, under Clause X of the Letters Patent applicable to this Court.
B. Facts
23 of the Act, for registration of the mark. User of the mark was claimed from 27 February 2013. First Examination Report [“FER” hereinafter] dated 26 November 2018 was issued by the Registrar of Tra
The court affirmed that not all amendments to a trademark application are substantial alterations; the amendment's nature must be assessed based on its impact on the original application.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinctiveness of a mark for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and the need for the Registrar to p....
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark from the register of trade marks must establish a fresh cause of action for rectific....
The right to cancel a trademark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act is independent of ongoing infringement suits and remains available for invocation regardless of related Section 124 implication....
Failure to comply with statutory rules for trademark registration, specifically regarding transliteration and translation, warrants cancellation of the registration.
The trial court must assess only the prima facie tenability of claims regarding trademark validity under Section 124, without delving into the merits of those claims.
The duty of the Court to rectify orders based on wrong assumptions of facts and the limited scope of review compared to an appeal.
Trademark rectification petitions require a triable issue on validity to proceed; without this, claims are not maintainable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
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
