* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 28/02/2026 + W.P.(C)-IPD 66/2021 & CM APPL. 3710/2017 RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Versus INTELLECTUAL PROERTY APPLELLATE BOARD AND ANR .....Respondents AND + W.P.(C)-IPD 69/2021 & CM APPL. 3712/2017 RAKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL .....Petitioner Versus INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY APPELLATE BOARD AND ANR .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioner : Mr. Varun Dhingra & Ms. Khushi Gupta, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Amit Jain & Mr. Bhavesh, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J INTRODUCTION:

1. The present Petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 10.05.2016 (“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No. 1 in Rectification Application bearing No. ORA/30/2013/TM/DEL filed by Respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C)-IPD 66/2021 and Rectification Application bearing No. ORA/31/2013/TM/DEL filed by Respondent No. 2 in W.P.(C)-IPD 69/2021 (“Rectification Applications”) directing the Registrar of Trade Marks at Delhi (“Registrar”) to cancel and remove the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ under Registration No. 1223066 in Class 21 from the Trade Marks Register.

SUBMISSIONSONBEHALFOFTHEPETITIONER:

2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made the following submissions:

2.1 The Petitioner has been trading as Agarwal Enterprises, Ganesh Ganj Kila, Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, being sole proprietor thereof, and a manufacturer, trader and merchant of all types brooms, included in Class 21. The Petitioner has been carrying on his business since 1995 using several trade marks including the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ in respect of the aforesaid goods registered under registration certificate No. 1223066 dated 14.08.2003 in respect of brooms of all types included in Class 21.

2.2 The Petitioner has given wide publicity to the Mark ‘THUKRAL’.

On account of superior quality of brooms and due to continuous use of the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ for more than 17 years, the Petitioner’s Mark ‘THUKRAL’ has acquired reputation and goodwill in public and trade and the goods under the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ connote and denote the goods and merchandise of the Petitioner and none else.

2.3 Respondent No. 2 has recently started the manufacturing and marketing of brooms under the name ‘THUKRAL’ and has copied the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ in respect of the goods namely brooms. The Petitioner has been using the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ since 1995 while Respondent No. 2 has allegedly started using the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ recently. The Petitioner is the prior user of the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ and therefore, Respondent No. 2 must be restrained from using the Mark ‘THUKRAL’. Also, the invoices placed on record by Respondent No. 2 clearly demonstrate that the firm name adopted and used by Respondent No. 2 is ‘THAKRAL’ and not ‘THUKRAL’.

2.4 Respondent No. 2 is not the sole user of the Mark ‘THUKRAL’.

The name of ‘THUKRAL’ is not sole property of Respondent No. 2. There is no restriction to adopt the name ‘THUKRAL’ by anyone. The Petitioner uses the name ‘THUKRAL’ as brand name and applied for its registration as a trade mark in 2003. It is Respondent No. 2’s claim that the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ was used before 1996 by Respondent No. 2’s predecessor. However, the firm M/s Thakral Stores of Respondent No. 2 has not claimed the Mark ‘THUKRAL’ in the survivorship and thus, the business of the firm M/s Thakral Stores never extended under the Mark ‘THUKRAL’.

2.5 Respondent No. 2 is well aware of the Petitioner’s Mark ‘THUKRAL’ and copyright existing therein and has deliberately with a dishonest and mala fide intention adopted the Petitioner’s Mark ‘THUKRAL’ only to trade upon the Petitioner’s reputation and to earn easy profits in an illegal manner for which Respondent No. 2 is not entitled.

2.6 The Petitioner’s Mark ‘THUKRAL’ and Respondent No. 2’s Mark ‘THUKRAL’ and the artistic work therein are identical. The Petitioner is much prior in use of the Mark ‘THUKRAL’.

Respondent No. 2 cannot be the proprietor / owner / originato