A trade mark that is phonetically and visually identical to a well-known mark, if registered without bona fide intent and in bad faith, is liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks under Section 57 to maintain the integrity and purity of the Register.

P.C.

1. The Petitioner, by way of the captioned Petition, seeks removal, cancellation, and rectification of the trade mark (“impugned trade mark”) bearing Registration No.3487173 in Class 31, registered in the name of Respondent No.1 in respect of the trade mark from the Register of Trade Marks.

2. Ms. Vishwanathan Learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner at the outset, invited my attention to the Order dated 19th November 2025, by which this Court, after noting that Respondent No.1 had, despite being granted several opportunities, not appeared, had thus directed that the matter proceed ex-parte against Respondent No.1. Respondent No. 2 is today represented, and thus the matter is taken up for hearing.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

3. Ms. Vishwanathan submitted that the Petitioner is the registered proprietor of the trade mark “VISTARA®” (“Petitioner’s trade mark”) in several classes in India, the earliest of which dates back to 2014. Learned Counsel then invited my attention to the details of the trade marks registered by the Petitioner in India as set out in paragraph 10 of the Evidence Affidavit filed by the Petitioner before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”), as also printouts of the e-Register and registration certificates issued by the Trade Marks Registry in respect of the Petitioner’s trade mark which were annexed as Annexure-E to the Petition.

4. Ms. Vishwanathan then pointed out that the Petitioner’s trade mark had been declared as a well-known mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”) by the Delhi High Court in the case of TATA SIA Airlines Limited v. M/s Pilot18 Aviation Book Store & Anr., (1 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9535) following which the Plaintiff’s trade mark had been included in the list of well-known trade marks maintained by Respondent No.2, which was publicly accessible on the official website of Respondent No.2 and hence was in the public domain.

5. Ms. Vishwanathan then submitted that the Petitioner provides full-service and low-cost scheduled passenger airline services, cargo belly-hold services and certain other allied businesses. The Petitioner’s predecessor, TATA SIA Airlines Limited announced its intention to use the mark “VISTARA®” for its airlines on

11th August 2014 and thereafter launched operations of its full-service airline in January 2015.

6. Ms. Vishwanathan then, by placing reliance upon the Evidence Affidavit filed by the Petitioner pointed out that the Petitioner has extensively used the trade mark “VISTARA®” in relation to a wide range of services, such as vehicle apparatus, transport services, household utensils, clothing, carpets, games, etc., as more particularly set out in a table incorporated in paragraph no.10 of the Petition. Learned Counsel also, from paragraph 6 of the Petition, pointed out the numerous recognitions and awards received by the Petitioner for the exemplary quality of its services under the mark “VISTARA®”. It was also pointed out from the evidence that the Petitioner had incurred substantial costs for continuous advertising and promotional efforts conducted nationwide. It was thus the submission of Learned Counsel that all of this established that the Plaintiff's trade mark had been used extensively across various services and had acquired significant goodwill and reputation.

7. Ms. Vishwanathan then submitted that the registration of the impugned mark was in class 31 and was in respect of “agricultural, horticultural and forestry products and grains, live animals, fresh fruits and vegetables, seeds, natural plants and flowers, and foodstuffs for animals included in class 31”. She submitted that the Petitioner also has reg