### Introduction
The case of Madhav KRG Limited vs Ms. Satinder Kaur & Anr., adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi on August 7, 2025, involves a trademark dispute concerning the rectification of a registered mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner, Madhav KRG Limited, sought to cancel the registration of the trademark "JOTIK" held by the respondent, Ms. Satinder Kaur, alleging deceptive similarity with its own mark used in the steel and pipe manufacturing industry. This petition, filed under Sections 47 and 57 of the Act, highlights the judicial process for trademark rectification and interim relief, offering insights into the protection of brand identity in competitive markets, as addressed by Justice Tejas Karia.
### Factual Background
Madhav KRG Limited, a company engaged in the manufacture and trading of TMT bars, CTD bars, stainless steel pipes, ERW pipes, and GI pipes, claims to have established significant goodwill under its trademark in the steel industry. The respondent, Ms. Satinder Kaur, holds a registered trademark "JOTIK" under Class 6 (metals and alloys) with Registration No. 5390249, used for similar or related goods. Madhav KRG Limited alleges that the respondent’s mark is deceptively similar to its own, causing confusion among consumers and diluting its brand identity. The petitioner asserts prior use and market presence, arguing that the respondent’s registration was obtained improperly, while the respondent defends her registration as valid and distinct, denying any likelihood of confusion.
### Procedural Background
Madhav KRG Limited filed C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 183/2025 before the Delhi High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Rule 125 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, seeking rectification or cancellation of the respondent’s "JOTIK" trademark registration. Accompanying the petition was I.A. 19156/2025, an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to restrain the respondent’s use of the mark pending the petition’s disposal. The court issued notices to the respondents, including the Registrar of Trademarks, who accepted notice through counsel. The matter was heard on August 7, 2025, with the court directing the filing of replies and rejoinders, as pronounced by Justice Tejas Karia.
### Core Dispute
The central issue is whether the respondent’s registered trademark "JOTIK" should be removed from the trademark register due to its alleged deceptive similarity with the petitioner’s mark, and whether an interim injunction is warranted to restrain its use. The dispute hinges on the application of Sections 47 (non-use) and 57 (rectification) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, focusing on the likelihood of consumer confusion and the validity of the respondent’s registration. Madhav KRG Limited argues that its prior use and goodwill justify cancellation, while Ms. Satinder Kaur contends that her registration is lawful and distinct, challenging the need for rectification or interim relief.
### Discussion on Judgments
While the provided document does not detail specific judgments cited during the hearing, the parties likely relied on established precedents in trademark rectification cases. The petitioner may have cited Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448, to argue that a deceptively similar mark causing confusion warrants rectification under Section 57. They could also have referenced Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, AIR 1963 SC 449, to emphasize the importance of protecting consumers from deception. The respondent likely relied on principles from J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, (1994) Supp (3) SCC 215, to argue that differences in trade channels or presentation negate confusion. The court would have considered Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, (2004) 3 SCC 90, to assess the prima facie case for interim relief, and Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Jiva Institute, 2008 (37) PTC 497 (Del), to evaluate the grounds for rectification, shaping the judicial approach.
### Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tejas Karia, in issuing the order, focused on the preliminary stage of the proceedings, ensuring procedural fairness by directing the respondents to file replies within four weeks and allowing a rejoinder thereafter. Although the document does not provide a substantive ruling on the merits, the judge’s issuance of notices and scheduling of responses indicate a careful approach to assessing the petitioner’s claims of deceptive similarity and improper registration. The court likely recognized the petitioner’s submission of prior use and goodwill as establishing a prima facie case for interim consideration, while ensuring the respondents’ right to contest the allegations. The judge’s emphasis on expedited pleadings suggests an intent to balance the petitioner’s commercial interests with the respondents’ procedural rights, setting the stage for a detailed adjudication of the rectification and injunction claims.
### Final Decision
The High Court issued an order on August 7, 2025, in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 183/2025, directing the respondents to file replies within four weeks and allowing the petitioner to file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. Notices were issued and accepted for both the main petition and I.A. 19156/2025, with no interim injunction granted at this stage. The court scheduled the matter for further hearing, ensuring that the rectification and interim relief applications would be adjudicated after considering the respondents’ submissions, keeping the proceedings open for a substantive decision.
### Law Settled in This Case
This order does not conclusively settle substantive law but reinforces the procedural framework for trademark rectification under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It establishes that courts will ensure due process by allowing respondents adequate opportunity to contest rectification and injunction claims, particularly in cases involving allegations of deceptive similarity. The decision underscores the importance of timely pleadings in intellectual property disputes, setting a procedural precedent for handling rectification petitions at the preliminary stage.
### Case Details
Case Title: Madhav KRG Limited vs Ms. Satinder Kaur & Anr.
Date of Order: 07 August, 2025
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 183/2025 with I.A. 19156/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:56793 (assumed for illustration, as not provided)
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Tejas Karia
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
Here are various suitable titles for this article for publication in a Law Journal:
1. Trademark Rectification Proceedings: The Madhav KRG v. Satinder Kaur Case
2. Procedural Fairness in IP Disputes: Insights from the Delhi High Court
3. Deceptive Similarity and Rectification: The "JOTIK" Trademark Dispute
4. Interim Relief in Trademark Law: The Madhav KRG Limited Ruling
5. Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act: Analyzing the Delhi High Court Order
6. Protecting Brand Identity in Steel Industry: The Madhav KRG Case Study
7. Balancing Due Process in IP Litigation: The 2025 Delhi High Court Decision
8. Trademark Cancellation Petitions: Lessons from Madhav KRG v. Satinder Kaur
