Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Sumit Kishan Sharma & Anr. – Respondent
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39 of 2024 & I.A. 5792 of 2024
Decided On : 31-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of a rectification petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of petitioner’s trademark usage and reputation. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments concerning respondent no. 1’s trademark adoption. (Para 4) |
| 4. counterarguments about the petitioner’s claims. (Para 5) |
| 5. court's evaluation of prior use and likelihood of confusion. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. decision to uphold and protect prior use rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. conclusion ordering removal of the impugned mark. (Para 17 , 18) |
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
1. The present Rectification Petition has been filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) seeking rectification of the Register of Trade Marks by cancellation / removal of the Trade Mark, ‘SUNFLARE/
’ (“Impugned Mark”) registered under Trade Mark Application No. 3455874 in Class 11 in favour of Respondent No. 1.
2. The Notice in the present Petition was issued vide Order dated 13.03.2024 and the Respondents were given a time of four weeks to file their respective replies to the present Petition. The learned Counsel for the Parties made submissions and the judgment was reserved on 15.10.2025.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions:
Mark, ‘SUNFLAME / ’ (“Petitioner’s Mark”). The Petitioner, however, was incorporated in the year 1984 under the name Sunflame Appliances Marketing Pvt. Ltd. whose name changed to its present name, i.e., Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1995. The Petitioner has grown since and is one of the leading companies engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of a wide range of home and kitchen appliances, inter alia, gas stoves, gas burners, baffle chimneys, cook tops, mixer, grinders, water heaters, cooking range, small appliance, induction, over toaster, pressure cookers, cookware, room heaters, water heaters and other appliances (“Petitioner’s Products”) and have been using the Petitioner’s Mark, continuously since the year 1980.3.2 The Petitioner for more than four decades is renowned for high-quality, high-performance kitchen and home appliances and delivering the best customer experience and value. The Petitioner has always met and exceeded customer experience and assured consistent quality and dependability with leading-edge and technical superiority and innovation as cornerstone of its corporate philosophy. Always exploring the possibility of new designs, technologies, features, and innovations with great emphasis on research and development, the Petitioner has established its leadership in creating better and quality products for its customers. Further, its vast network of dealers and service centers across the country ensures unfailing service and support for ultimate customer satisfaction. The Petitioner’s Mark has acquired distinctiveness and enviable goodwill and reputation due to its extensive, long and continuous use since the year 1980. The Petitioner has applied for and received various registrations for the Petitioner’s Mark, the details of which are as under:
3.3 Due to superior quality and high efficacy of the Petitioner’s Products, continuous and extensive use of the Petitioner’s Mark and large sales, the Petitioner has acquired immense reputation and goodwill in the Petitioner’s Mark, and the Petitioner’s Products sold thereunder. The result of the efficacy of Petitioner’s Products sold under the Petitioner’s Mark is reflected in its sales turnover which is growing steadily every year. The sales turnover and the promotional expenditure of the Petitioner’s Products under the Petitioner’s Mark since the Financial Year (“FY”) 2013-14 until FY 2022-23 is as under:
| Financial Year | Sales (Rs. In Lakhs) | Promotional Expenditure (Rs. In Lakh |
|---|---|---|
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
The court ruled that deceptive similarity between competing marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and supports injunction against the infringing party.
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,....
Prior adoption and user rights establish entitlement to trademark protection, and their absence undermines claims for rectification, regardless of phonetic similarity.
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 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....
Registration validity sustained if distinctiveness established over time despite claims of descriptiveness.
A trade mark recognized as well-known under the Trade Marks Act is protected against concurrent use by others regardless of the class of goods, particularly when evidence of rightful prior use and bo....
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
