Delhi High Court: In a rectification petition filed under Sections 57 read with Section of the (‘the Act’), seeking cancellation/removal of the trade mark ‘GANESH HARA MATAR’ (‘impugned mark’), a Single Judge Bench of Amit Bansal, J., stated that not only was trade mark of Respondent 1 confusingly/deceptively similar to petitioner’s prior adopted/registered trade mark ‘GANESH’ or its formative marks, but the nature of the petitioner’s and Respondent 1’s goods were also identical. The Court stated that it was clear that the impugned mark was adopted by Respondent 1 dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill and reputation of the petitioner and to project itself associated with the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of the impugned registration on the Register of Trade Marks was in contravention of provisions of Section of the and was liable to be cancelled under Section of the .
Background
In 1936, the petitioner, Ganesh Grains began its business under the trade mark ‘GANESH’, through its predecessor partnership firm ‘Ram Gopal Ram Ratan’. Since 1936, through its predecessor, the petitioner was engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting goods inter alia Atta, Maida, all the wheat products, Coffee, Tea, Cocoa, Sugar Rice, and various other edible products falling in different classes under the Act.
In 1950s, the business of the partnership firm ‘Ram Gopal Ram Ratan’ was transferred to the firm ‘Ganesh Flour Mills’. On 09-03-2000, the company ‘Ganesh Wheat Products Private Limited’ was incorporated and business of ‘Ganesh Flour Mills’ was taken over by the said company. Further, on 04-01-2011, name of the company was changed to ‘Ganesh Grains Private Limited’ and subsequently, the same was again changed to ‘Ganesh Grains Limited’ on 05-02-2011.
In order to obtain statutory protection over its trade mark ‘GANESH’ and its variants, the petitioner applied for its trade mark application in 1950s and since then, the petitioner had obtained over 85 trade mark registrations in its favour for the mark ‘GANESH’ and the ‘GANESH’ formative variants under various classes. Due to continuous and extensive use of the trade mark, the petitioner had garnered immense goodwill and reputation in the trade mark ‘GANESH’.
In September 2020, the petitioner came across the impugned mark of Respondent 1, i.e. ‘GANESH HARA MATAR’, in respect of namkeen, dalmoth, snacks, preparation made from cereals. Thus, the petitioner field the present petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (‘IPAB’) alleging that the impugned mark of Respondent 1 was deceptively similar to petitioner’s mark. This matter was subsequently transferred from the IPAB to the present Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the petitioner was duly verified and was also supported by the affidavit. However, no reply was filed on the respondents’ behalf, and all the averments made in the petition must be admitted. The Court stated that it was trite law that in the absence of any denial to the averments made in the petition, the same had to be taken as admitted. Further, the record showed that Respondent 1 did not file any invoices or any other documents, evidencing the user of the impugned mark. Therefore, the mark was liable to be removed on the ground of non-user.
The Court stated that the petitioner had established that it was the prior registered proprietor and prior user of the mark ‘GANESH’ and its other formative marks since 1936. The adoption and use of the impugned mark by Respondent 1, was likely to create confusion in the market. The Court stated that not only was trade mark of Respondent 1 confusingly/deceptively similar to petitioner’s prior adopted/registered trade mark ‘GANESH’ or its formative marks, but the nature of the petitioner’s and Respondent 1’s goods were also identical.
Thus, the Court stated that it was clear that the impugned mark was adopted by Respondent 1 dishonestly to trade upon the established goodwill and reputation of the petitioner and to project itself associated with the petitioner. Therefore, the continuation of the impugned registration on the Register of Trade Marks was in contravention of provisions of Section of the and was liable to be cancelled under Section of the .
Accordingly, the Court allowed the present petition and directed for removal of the impugned trade mark registration under the trade mark application in Respondent 1’s name from Register of Trade Marks.
[Ganesh Grains Ltd. v. Dharmendra Kumar Gupta, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 591 of 2022, decided on 22-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ankur Sangal and Amrit Sharma, Advocates.
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999
The post appeared first on .