The High Court of Delhi, in a ruling dated April 1, 2025, addressed a rectification petition filed by Ibibo Group Private Limited against Satyendra Kumar Singh and another respondent, seeking the cancellation of the trademark "GO PLUS" (registration no. 3742148) in Class 9 from the Register of Trade Marks. The case, identified as C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 251/2022, was adjudicated under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with the court granting the petitioner’s request due to the respondent’s failure to contest the claims and the petitioner’s established prior rights and goodwill in its "GOIBIBO" and related "GO-formative" marks. Justice Amit Bansal delivered the oral judgment, directing the Trade Marks Registry to remove the impugned mark, thereby reinforcing the protection of well-known trademarks against deceptive similarity and dilution.
Ibibo Group Private Limited, the petitioner, is a prominent player in India’s online travel industry, operating under the "GOIBIBO" brand. The company has built a robust presence since 2009, offering a comprehensive travel platform that facilitates bookings for flights, hotels, buses, and ancillary services like travel insurance. With a website (www.goibibo.com) registered on May 22, 2009, and operational since 2010, the petitioner has processed over 10 million bookings. Its mobile application, launched in 2013, has garnered over 16 million downloads across platforms like Google Play and Apple iStore. The company’s extensive promotional efforts span traditional print media, digital channels, and sponsorships of national and international events, resulting in significant unsolicited media coverage in leading publications. Social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram, further amplify the visibility of the "GOIBIBO" marks. Financially, the petitioner’s success is evident from its sales turnover of Rs. 135,631 lakhs and marketing expenses of Rs. 125,175 lakhs in the fiscal year 2017-18, as detailed in the petition. This commercial success has been complemented by prestigious awards and partnerships with celebrities and corporate giants, cementing the "GOIBIBO" brand’s reputation.
The petitioner’s intellectual property portfolio includes registered trademarks for "GOIBIBO" and various "GO-formative" marks—such as "GO CONTACTS," "GOCASH PLUS," "GO BIZ," "GO BUSINESS," and "GO STAYS"—across multiple classes, including Class 9 (downloadable software for travel-related services), Class 35 (business services), Class 36 (financial services), Class 39 (transport and travel), and Class 43 (accommodation services). The earliest registration for "GOIBIBO" dates to August 18, 2011, with a user claim from May 22, 2009, reflecting over a decade of continuous use. This extensive adoption and promotion have positioned "GO" as a dominant and independently recognizable element associated exclusively with the petitioner’s services in the minds of the public and trade.
The dispute originated when the petitioner identified the "GO PLUS" mark in Trade Marks Journal No. 1840, published on March 12, 2018. Filed by respondent no. 1, Satyendra Kumar Singh, on February 1, 2018, on a "proposed to be used" basis, the mark was registered on July 31, 2018, in Class 9 for "mobile and mobile accessories, charger, ear phone, battery, bluetooth, screen guard." Due to an error by its trademark agents, the petitioner missed the deadline to oppose the application before registration. Aggrieved by the registration, Ibibo Group filed the rectification petition, arguing that "GO PLUS" was deceptively similar to its "GOIBIBO" and "GO-formative" marks, likely to cause confusion, deceive consumers, and dilute its goodwill.
Procedurally, the case transitioned to the High Court following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. The IPAB had initially issued notice to the respondent on March 18, 2019, but subsequent records were incomplete. After the transfer, the High Court issued fresh notice on July 22, 2022, and confirmed service on December 15, 2022. Despite these efforts, the respondent neither appeared nor filed a reply, effectively conceding the petitioner’s averments. This non-participation shaped the court’s approach, allowing it to treat the petition’s claims as admitted under established legal principles.
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Abhishek Kotnala and Mr. Kartikeya Tandon, advanced several key arguments. They emphasized the petitioner’s prior adoption and exclusive proprietorship of the "GOIBIBO" and "GO-formative" marks, rooted in their use since 2009. They contended that "GO PLUS" was deceptively similar, posing a risk of confusion and deception among consumers. The widespread goodwill of the "GOIBIBO" brand, they argued, extended to the "GO" element, which the public independently associated with the petitioner’s services. This association was reinforced by the petitioner’s array of "GO-formative" marks, making the registration of "GO PLUS" a threat to the distinctiveness of its trademark family. Additionally, the goods covered by the impugned mark—mobile accessories and related items—overlapped with the petitioner’s Class 9 software offerings, heightening the potential for confusion. Finally, they noted the respondent’s non-use of "GO PLUS," suggesting that cancellation would cause no prejudice.
Justice Bansal’s analysis hinged on the uncontested evidence and legal precedents. The respondent’s failure to respond left the petitioner’s claims unopposed, a circumstance the court interpreted as an admission of the averments. A side-by-side comparison of the marks revealed striking similarities: the petitioner’s portfolio included "GOIBIBO," "GO STAYS," "GO CARS," "GO BIZ," and "GOCASH PLUS," among others, while the respondent’s mark was "GO PLUS." The court identified "GO" as the essential and dominant feature, a conclusion bolstered by the respondent’s inclusion of a "GO" logo alongside "GO PLUS." This similarity, when viewed holistically, rendered "GO PLUS" deceptively akin to the petitioner’s marks.
The court drew on its ruling in Greaves Cotton Limited v. Mohammad Rafi and Ors. (2011 SCC OnLine Del 2596) to frame its assessment of deceptive similarity. It noted that infringement does not require an exact replica of a registered mark; rather, it suffices if the impugned mark resembles the plaintiff’s mark substantially, likely deceiving or confusing consumers. The judgment highlighted that savvy infringers often introduce minor variations to evade liability, but such tactics do not preclude relief if the resemblance remains significant. Here, the shared "GO" element, coupled with the petitioner’s extensive use and reputation, satisfied this threshold. The court rejected the notion that minor differences—like the addition of "PLUS"—negated the risk of confusion, especially given the petitioner’s established market presence.
Further, the court examined the overlap in goods and services. The petitioner’s Class 9 registrations covered downloadable software for travel-related digital content, loyalty schemes, and accommodation searches—offerings that intersected with the respondent’s mobile accessories, which often complement digital platforms. This proximity amplified the likelihood of consumer confusion. The petitioner’s prior use since 2009, contrasted with the respondent’s adoption in 2018 on a "proposed to be used" basis and subsequent non-use, underscored the inequity of maintaining the registration. The court found that the petitioner’s goodwill, built through years of promotion and recognition, was vulnerable to dilution by the impugned mark, even absent active use by the respondent.
Applying Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, the court concluded that the registration of "GO PLUS" contravened legal standards. Section 9 prohibits registration of marks lacking distinctiveness, Section 11 bars marks likely to cause confusion due to similarity with earlier trademarks, and Section 18 governs the Registrar’s authority to accept applications. The continued presence of "GO PLUS" on the Register, the court reasoned, violated these provisions by threatening the petitioner’s rights and public interest. Under Section 57, which empowers rectification for entries wrongly remaining on the Register, the court found cancellation warranted.
The judgment culminated in an order allowing the petition and directing the Trade Marks Registry to remove "GO PLUS" (no. 3742148) from Class 9. The court instructed its Registry to forward the order to the Trade Marks Registry via email for compliance, disposing of all pending applications. Delivered orally on April 1, 2025, the ruling exemplifies the judiciary’s role in safeguarding trademark integrity, particularly when uncontested evidence reveals a clear threat to established rights.
Complete Citation
- Case Name: Ibibo Group Pvt Ltd. Vs. Satyendra Kumar Singh
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 251/2022
- Date of Decision: April 1, 2025
- Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
- Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2480
