Bhupinder Mehta Vs Sh Pradeep Bareja

Ms. Bhupinder Mehta filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the trademark 'BSM' (No. 5149074 in Class 11) registered in favor of Respondent No. 1, Pradeep Bareja, claiming prior adoption and use of the 'BSM' mark since 2014 for lighting products through her family business, with applications filed in 2015 and 2021, one abandoned, one registered in Class 9, and one opposed; she became aware of the impugned mark in June 2024 via opposition to her application.

Notice was issued on 02.09.2024, but Respondent No. 1 failed to file a reply or appear despite extensions, leading to ex-parte proceedings on 06.05.2025, with submissions heard on 12.11.2025 and judgment reserved. The court found the petitioner's averments uncontroverted, established her prior use and goodwill through sales figures up to ₹8.79 crore in 2022-23, promotion via expos and social media, and deemed the impugned mark deceptively similar phonetically, visually, and conceptually to the petitioner's mark for identical goods, likely causing confusion; relying on precedents, it held Respondent No. 1's adoption dishonest and in bad faith, overriding registration, and directed removal of the impugned mark from the register.

Law Point:

• The correct approach to decide the infringing nature of competing marks is to examine whether the defendants have adopted the essential features of the plaintiff's mark, with phonetic similarity being a significant factor, and if goods are identical, confusion cannot be excluded:  [Para 6.8].
• To determine deceptive similarity between marks, focus on broad and essential features without side-by-side comparison for minor differences; overall resemblance likely to mislead is sufficient:  [Para 6.8].
• Rectification of the Trade Marks Register is warranted when registration was applied for in bad faith:  [Para 6.9].
• Prior user's rights override those of a subsequent registered trademark owner, especially for identical/deceptively similar marks on identical goods adopted dishonestly [Paras 12, 14, 15].

Case Title: Bhupinder Mehta Vs Sh Pradeep Bareja"24.12.2025:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 163/2024:2025:DHC:11863: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

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