Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA
Sunflame Enterprises P. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sumit Kishan Sharma – Respondent
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. L
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
