Maarg (India) Vs. King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd.

Trademark Rectification and Prior User Rights

Facts: Maarg (India), a registered partnership firm based in Chennai, claimed that it had coined and adopted the trademark “PTA” in 1997 for hardware items such as screws and fasteners and later designed a distinctive logo in 2001. Maarg alleged that it had built substantial goodwill in the market under the “PTA” mark and sought to protect it from unauthorized use. It discovered that King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd., a Taiwanese company, was using both “PATTA” and “PTA” marks on its hardware goods, particularly screws, which Maarg believed amounted to infringement and passing off.

Accordingly, Maarg filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain King Point from using the marks “PTA” or “PATTA,” delivery-up, rendition of accounts, and damages of ₹50 lakhs for loss and harm. King Point, however, contended that it was the original proprietor and prior user of both “PATTA” (since 1987) and “PTA” (since 1990) internationally and in India. It claimed prior registration of similar marks in nearly 96 countries and usage in India through affiliated companies like Patta International Ltd. and Pro-Bin International Ltd., which were exporting to Indian entities well before Maarg’s adoption. King Point also filed a rectification petition under sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to remove Maarg’s registration of “PTA” bearing No.1677459 in Class 6.

Procedural Details: The suit for infringement and passing off (C.S. No.163 of 2018) and the rectification petition (TOP(TM) No. 32 of 2023) were jointly heard and disposed of by a common judgment owing to their identical subject matter.

King Point led evidence first, as issues of validity of Maarg’s trademark were germane to the rectification petition. Its witness, Mr. Abhishek Jain, a constituted attorney, testified and produced documents including worldwide registrations, export invoices, packaging materials, website extracts, and prior court papers. Maarg’s partner, Mr. Ali Asgar, testified in defence and produced partnership documents, invoices, and alleged proof of prior user. Eleven issues were framed, including who was the prior adopter/user of “PTA,” whether Maarg’s adoption was dishonest, whether King Point infringed Maarg’s mark, and whether the entry of “PTA” in Maarg’s name should be rectified.

Nature of the Dispute:  At the heart of the dispute was the ownership of the trademark “PTA,” which both parties allegedly used in relation to screws and other fastener hardware. Maarg claimed to have independently coined the mark (“Praise The Almighty”), while King Point asserted earlier international adoption and registration, with evidence of sales and exports to India. Maarg also relied on invoices and a 1999 agreement with a Punjab manufacturer to demonstrate user since 2001, whereas King Point challenged the authenticity of these documents, particularly highlighting suspicious details like non-existent phone numbers on older documents and the later presence of Maarg’s associates (e.g., Valmax, Amkar International) purchasing screws from King Point.

Detailed Judicial Reasoning:  The court addressed the preliminary objection by Maarg that King Point’s pleadings and evidence were unauthorized, being filed by Mr. Abhishek Jain. Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 660 and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank (2005) 2 SCC 217, the Court held that even if formal authorization was initially lacking, it is a curable defect and could be subsequently ratified. A 2025 board resolution of King Point ratifying the action was produced. Consequently, the objection failed.

In examining issues on prior adoption and user, the Court emphasized that King Point had evidence of consistent use of “PTA” since 1990 and “PATTA” since 1987, including international trademark certificates (Ex.P3, P4, and P30), invoices from as early as 1996 (Ex.P11 series), and worldwide registrations predating Maarg’s adoption. Export documents to India from 2002–2005 revealed that Patta International and Pro-Bin International—King Point’s affiliates—supplied PTA-marked screws to Indian buyers such as Simco Fasteners, Amkar International, and Yen Fasteners.

In contrast, Maarg’s invoices (Ex.R8) showing sales from 2001 onward were inconsistent and raised doubts. The Court observed that each invoice described Maarg as a “dealer of PTA self-drilling screws,” implying it was selling another’s products, not acting as an original manufacturer. Additionally, Maarg’s alleged agreement with Unique Industries (Ex.R3) was deemed unconvincing because the rubber stamp thereon contained a phone number unavailable in 1999. Two partnership deeds of identical date (2 September 1997) created further suspicion of forgery or fabrication.

The Court carefully connected documentary and oral evidence. Emails from Riaz Ahmed of Amkar International in 2005 explicitly described Maarg as a “sister concern” of Valmax and reported sales of King Point’s drywall screws, which the judge interpreted as evidence that Maarg had commercial links with King Point through these intermediary distributors. Maarg’s financial records also showed Valmax as its largest creditor in 2008–2010, reinforcing this connection.

Relying on these documents and admissions, the Court concluded that Maarg and its associates had purchased and sold Patta/PTA branded goods of King Point. Hence, Maarg’s adoption of “PTA” was not bona fide but stemmed from knowledge of King Point’s mark obtained through prior business relationships.

The Court analogized this to principles in Frank Reddaway v. George Banham (1896 AC 199 HL)*, emphasizing that dishonestly copying another’s well-known foreign mark, especially when dealing in identical goods, amounted to bad faith adoption.

Justice Ramamoorthy also affirmed that King Point had established transborder reputation, citing Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., MANU/SC/1619/2017, holding that international goodwill may spill over into India even without continuous advertisement or direct sales if there is credible proof of presence and association in trade circles.

On these findings, the Court ruled that King Point was the prior adopter and user of the trademark “PTA,” whereas Maarg’s registration was wrongful under sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Continuing such registration would confuse buyers and unjustly associate King Point’s products with Maarg’s business.

Regarding Maarg’s claim for infringement and damages, the Court ruled that once Maarg’s adoption was found dishonest and not genuine, it could not assert statutory or common law rights against King Point, the true proprietor. Maarg’s invoices, admissions, and delay in filing suit (despite being aware of King Point’s prior Delhi litigation since 2011) further eroded its credibility.

Judgment and Decision

Decision: The Court dismissed Maarg’s civil suit (C.S.No.163 of 2018) and allowed King Point’s rectification petition (TOP(TM) No.32 of 2023). It directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to expunge Maarg’s registered trademark No.1677459 (“PTA”) in Class 6 from the Register of Trade Marks, effective thirty days from receipt of the judgment.  The Judge held that Maarg’s adoption of “PTA” was not bona fide, the registration was wrongly entered, and the coexistence of both marks would likely confuse consumers in identical markets. The judgment thus reaffirmed the principles of prior user supremacy, good faith adoption, and the doctrine of transborder reputation.

Case Title:Maarg (India) Vs King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd.

Order Date: 09 October 2025

Case Number: C.S.No.163 of 2018 & (T)OP(TM) No.32 of 2023

Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2358

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Hon’ble Judge: Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi