Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. vs Kamal Bansal

Trademark VKG was held deceptively similar to Trademark VKC

Facts of the Case:

Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd., the petitioner, is part of the VKC Group, engaged in footwear manufacturing since 1984. The petitioner owns the registered trademark 'VKC' (Reg. No. 1574632) under Class 25 and has continuously used it since 1985. The respondent, Kamal Bansal, obtained registration of the trademark 'VKG' (Reg. No. 2092681) under Class 25, claiming use since January 7, 2011. The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal of 'VKG' from the Trade Marks Register.

Issues:

The primary issue was whether the registration of 'VKG' by the respondent was deceptive and created confusion with the prior mark 'VKC.' Another question was whether the respondent had genuinely used the trademark 'VKG' in commerce. The case also examined whether the registration of 'VKG' violated Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Reasoning of the Court:

The court noted that the petitioner had prior use of the 'VKC' mark since 1985, whereas the respondent applied for 'VKG' in 2011. The respondent failed to appear in court or submit any evidence proving the actual use of the 'VKG' trademark. Relying on H&M Hennes & Mauritz AB v. HM Megabrands Pvt. Ltd. (2018 DHC 3620), the court held that mere registration does not establish use. The respondent’s failure to prove genuine use of the mark warranted cancellation under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The similarity in structure, phonetics, and goods (footwear) between 'VKC' and 'VKG' created a likelihood of confusion in the market.

Decision:

The court ordered the removal of the trademark 'VKG' (Reg. No. 2092681) from the Trade Marks Register. The Registry was directed to notify the Trade Marks Office for compliance.

Law Point Settled:

A trademark can be removed if there is non-use for a continuous period under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Mere registration does not confer trademark rights unless there is genuine commercial use. If a later mark is deceptively similar to a prior mark and causes likelihood of confusion, it can be removed under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act.

Case Details:

:Case Title: Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. vs Kamal Bansal

Date of Order: February 27, 2025

Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 542/2022

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1451

Court: High Court of Delhi

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal