Satish Chand Gupta Vs Saroj Rani

Non-Impleadment of Legal Heirs of Deceased Partner in Partnership Firm

Introduction:

In a recent legal case, the question arose as to whether the legal heirs of a deceased partner of a partnership firm should be impleaded in a trademark cancellation proceeding. The trademark in question had been registered in the name of "Saroj Rani, Anil Garg, Sunil Garg, trading as M/s Kuria Mal and Sons." However, the impugned registration was initially issued to "Kuria Mal Gopi Chand," in which Saroj Rani was a partner. During the pendency of the cancellation proceeding, Saroj Rani passed away. The central issue before the court was whether the legal heirs of Saroj Rani should be made parties to the cancellation proceeding.

The Petitioner's Argument:

The petitioner in this case contended that the impugned trademark registration was initially issued to the partnership firm "Kuria Mal Gopi Chand," of which Saroj Rani was a partner. Importantly, the petitioner argued that this partnership continued to exist even after the demise of one of its partners, Saroj Rani. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased partner, Saroj Rani, need not be impleaded in the cancellation proceeding.

The Court's Ruling:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi approved the petitioner's submission and held that the legal heirs of a deceased partner of a partnership firm are not required to be impleaded in a cancellation proceeding under the circumstances described in this case.

Analysis:

This ruling by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi raises several important legal and practical considerations, which can be analyzed as follows:

Continuation of Partnership:

The core argument in favor of not impleading the legal heirs of Saroj Rani was that the partnership firm "Kuria Mal Gopi Chand" continued to exist even after Saroj Rani's demise. In such cases, it can be argued that the partnership entity, as a separate legal entity, remains responsible for its obligations and liabilities, including any legal disputes involving trademarks or other assets.

Legal Personality of a Partnership Firm:

Partnership firms in many legal systems are considered separate legal entities distinct from their individual partners. This legal personality allows them to own property, enter into contracts, and be parties to legal proceedings. In this context, the court's decision aligns with the recognition of the partnership firm as an independent legal entity capable of defending its interests and liabilities.

Efficiency and Streamlining of Legal Proceedings:

Impleading the legal heirs of a deceased partner can often complicate legal proceedings. It may require identifying and serving notice to multiple individuals, potentially residing in different locations, which can lead to delays and increased administrative burdens. The court's decision reflects an inclination towards streamlining legal proceedings by focusing on the partnership entity itself.

Exceptions to the Rule:

While this case establishes a general principle that legal heirs need not be impleaded when the partnership firm continues to exist, exceptions may arise in certain situations. For instance, if the partnership agreement explicitly specifies the procedure to follow in the event of a partner's death, or if local laws require the legal heirs to be notified, these factors may override the general principle.

Protection of the Interests of Legal Heirs:

It is important to note that the court's decision does not negate the rights and interests of the legal heirs of a deceased partner. They may still have a claim to the deceased partner's share in the partnership, and their rights and interests should be safeguarded through appropriate legal channels, which may include proceedings separate from the cancellation of a trademark registration.

The Concluding Note:

The ruling by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in this case provides valuable insights into the treatment of legal heirs in partnership firm-related cancellation proceedings. It underscores the legal recognition of a partnership firm as a distinct legal entity, capable of maintaining its rights and obligations even after the death of one of its partners, under certain circumstances. However, this decision should not be seen as a one-size-fits-all rule, as exceptions may apply based on specific partnership agreements and legal requirements. Overall, it emphasizes the need for a nuanced approach when dealing with the complexities of partnership law and trademark cancellations involving partnership entities.

Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:24/01/2023

Case No. Co Comm IPD TM 46 of 2021

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar H.J.

Case Title: Satish Chand Gupta Vs Saroj Rani

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor: Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Anil Kapoor Vs Simply Life India & Ors.

Dark Patterns and Personality Rights: An Analytical Legal Perspective

Introduction

In a rapidly evolving digital landscape, the intersection of technology and law has given rise to complex legal issues surrounding the protection of an individual's personality rights. The case of Anil Kapoor, a renowned Indian actor, brings to the forefront the need to safeguard an individual's name, likeness, and persona from misuse in the digital realm. Kapoor's lawsuit highlights the impact of dark patterns on personality rights and the evolving legal landscape in India.

Personality Rights and Their Scope

Anil Kapoor's lawsuit primarily revolves around the concept of personality rights, which encompasses a person's right to control and protect their name, appearance, likeness, persona, voice, and other personal characteristics. These rights are essential for safeguarding an individual's identity in an age where technology facilitates the easy replication and distribution of personal attributes.

In Kapoor's case, he seeks protection not only for his name and likeness but also for aspects such as his unique delivery style, gestures, and signatures. This broad scope underscores the comprehensive nature of personality rights in today's digital world.

Exploitative Misuse of Personality Rights

The crux of Kapoor's claim lies in the alleged misuse of his personality rights by various online entities and websites. These entities are purportedly profiting from Kapoor's image, likeness, and other aspects of his identity by selling products bearing his name and image. This raises important legal questions regarding the commercial exploitation of an individual's persona without their consent.

The concept of misappropriation of personality rights is not new in the legal domain. Kapoor's case highlights the need for legal remedies to protect individuals from the unauthorized and malicious use of their personal attributes for financial gain.

Dark Patterns and Deceptive Internet Techniques

A significant development in Kapoor's case is the introduction of the 'Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns 2023,' proposed by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Government of India. Dark patterns refer to deceptive internet techniques designed to mislead and manipulate consumers, often leading to undesirable outcomes. Such practices not only infringe upon consumer rights but can also have far-reaching consequences on an individual's personality rights.

In Kapoor's case, the misuse of his persona by online entities can be seen as a form of dark pattern, as it misleads consumers into believing that Kapoor endorses or supports these products. The proposed guidelines seek to address these deceptive practices, aligning with the broader goal of protecting consumers' interests and rights in the digital space.

Legal Precedents and Judicial Response

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's decision to grant an interim injunction in favor of Kapoor reflects a legal stance that disapproves of any form of misuse or commercial use of a celebrity's name, voice, persona, or likeness. This stance is consistent with the landmark case of R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994), which established the principle that an individual's personality rights deserve protection.

Furthermore, the court recognized that Kapoor's persona was at risk of dilution, tarnishment, and blurring due to unauthorized use. It emphasized that such protection was not only necessary for Kapoor's benefit but also to shield his family and friends from the negative repercussions of misuse.

Conclusion

Anil Kapoor's legal battle to protect his personality rights highlights the evolving challenges in the digital age, where dark patterns and deceptive practices can threaten an individual's identity and reputation. The judiciary's response, as demonstrated by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, reinforces the importance of safeguarding personality rights in the face of technological advancements and deceptive online tactics.

The intersection of personality rights, dark patterns, and consumer protection guidelines underscores the need for a robust legal framework that adapts to the changing digital landscape. Kapoor's case serves as a reminder of the imperative to balance technological innovation with the preservation of individual rights and dignity in the digital realm.

Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:20/09/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 652/2023

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.

Case Title: Anil Kapoor Vs Simply Life India & Ors.

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor: Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Vifor International Ltd. & Anr. vs Biological E Limited

Refusal of Injunction in a Patent Infringement Case Based on the Balance of Convenience

Introduction:

The case at hand revolves around the refusal of an injunction in a patent infringement lawsuit, with the court favoring the defendant based on the principle of the "balance of convenience." The lawsuit pertains to a patent (No. 221536) titled "WATER SOLUBLE IRON CARBOHYDRATE COMPLEX AND A PROCESS FOR PRODUCING WATER SOLUBLE IRON CARBOHYDRATE COMPLEX," which covers an intravenous iron deficiency therapy product. This article delves into the key aspects of the case, including the patent's history, the alleged infringement, and the court's reasoning in declining the injunction.

Background:

The patent in question was filed in October 2003 and granted in June 2008. The product received marketing approval in India in 2011. and expiring in October 2023. The World Health Organization (WHO) has also assigned the International Nonproprietary Name FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE to the plaintiff's invention.

Alleged Infringement and Notice:

On June 7, 2023, the defendants sent a notice to the plaintiff seeking an acknowledgment that they are not infringing the patent. The defendant claimed that they are using a process different from the one disclosed and claimed in the patent.

Product or Product-by-Process Patent

A significant point of contention in this case is whether the patent is a 'product' and 'process' patent or a 'product-by-process' patent. A prior decision by a Co-ordinate Bench of the same court, in a related case filed by the plaintiffs concerning the same patent, held that 'product-by-process' patents are recognized in Indian jurisprudence.

Such patents are limited by the process through which the product is obtained, and third parties manufacturing the same product using a different process do not infringe the patent. However, it is worth noting that this decision is under challenge before the Division Bench in FAO(OS) (COMM) 159/2023. Therefore, the controversy surrounding the nature of the patent remains unresolved.

The Balance of Convenience:

The central issue leading to the refusal of an injunction in this case is the balance of convenience. The court weighed the interests of both parties involved, i.e., the plaintiffs and the defendants, in determining whether to grant an interim injunction.

Irreparable Loss to Defendants:

The court considered the fact that the defendants had already entered the market with their product, which they claimed did not infringe the patent. Granting an interim injunction at this stage would potentially cause irreparable loss to the defendants, as they would be prevented from selling their product.

Plaintiffs' Interests:

To protect the interests of the plaintiffs, the court opted for an alternative approach. Rather than granting an injunction, it directed the defendants to provide an account of their manufacturing and sales of FERRIC CARBOXYMALTOSE (FCM) for the relevant period. This would allow the plaintiffs to assess the extent of any potential infringement and seek appropriate remedies if necessary.

The Concluding Note:

In the case of patent infringement, the decision to grant or deny an injunction is a delicate balancing act. The court's decision in this instance to refuse an injunction in favor of the defendant was influenced by the considerations of the balance of convenience. It took into account the potential harm to the defendants if an injunction was granted and sought to protect the interests of the plaintiffs through alternative means. Moreover, the ongoing dispute regarding the nature of the patent adds another layer of complexity to the case, as it awaits resolution by the Division Bench. The refusal of the injunction in this case underscores the significance of carefully evaluating the equities involved in patent infringement cases.

Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:19/09/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 434/2023

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6864

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Vikas Mahajan, H.J.

Case Title: Vifor International Ltd. & Anr. vs Biological E Limited

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor: Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

The Trustee of Princeton University Vs The Vagdevi Educational Society

Trademark user claimed by a party prior to what has been claimed in trademark application

Introduction:

The issue of whether a party can claim use of a trademark prior to what has been declared in a trademark application is a matter of significance in trademark law. This article delves into a notable case involving the trademark "PRINCETON" in the context of educational institutions and services in India.

The case presents a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the claimed user dates of the trademark. The plaintiff asserts use since 1911, while the defendant's claimed use in India dates back to 1991. The core question is whether a party can assert use prior to what has been declared in their trademark application.

Background of the Case:

In this case, the defendant raised an argument that the plaintiff must restrict its earliest claim of using the "PRINCETON" mark to 1996. This contention was based on the fact that, in the plaintiff's affidavit of user filed with its trademark application in 2012, the plaintiff stated use of the mark starting from 1996. The defendant asserted that this declaration should be binding on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that even if they declared use of the mark from 1996 during the trademark registration process, they should still be entitled to claim use from an earlier date if they could provide irrefutable evidence of such prior use. Essentially, the plaintiff argued that the declaration made during the registration process should not override actual use.

Legal Analysis:

The case was brought before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which issued a noteworthy judgment providing valuable insights into this legal conundrum. The court's ruling emphasizes several key principles:

Declaration of User:

The court recognized that the declaration of user made at the time of applying for trademark registration is significant. In most cases, it would ordinarily bind the applicant. This declaration is vital for establishing the timeline of use and securing exclusive rights.

Approbate and Reprobate:

The court cited the principles of approbate and reprobate, indicating that a party cannot simultaneously assert use from a particular date during the registration process and claim earlier use if it suits their interests. Ordinarily, the declaration should be consistent with the asserted use date.

Actual Use Prevails:

However, the court emphasized that if the party can indisputably demonstrate actual use of the asserted mark from a point in time earlier than what was declared during registration, this evidence would prevail. In such cases, the court cannot ignore the material presented by the party regarding prior use.

Practical Example:

To illustrate this principle, the court provided a practical example. If the trademark relates to an educational institution's name and the plaintiff declared use from 2010 during registration but could prove that the institution prominently displayed the mark on its premises since 2000, then the use of the mark would be reckoned from 2000, not 2010.

The Concluding Note:

In conclusion, the case involving the trademark "PRINCETON" in the context of educational services highlights the nuanced approach taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding claims of use prior to what has been declared in a trademark application. While the declaration of user is important and should ordinarily be consistent with actual use, the court recognized that evidence of prior use can override the declared date if presented convincingly.

Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:06/09/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 270/2022

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6420

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Title: The Trustee of Princeton University Vs The Vagdevi Educational Society

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor: Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Atlantech Online Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Google India Pvt. Ltd.

The Maximum Time Limit for Filing Replication in Delhi High Court

Introduction:

In civil litigation, the replication plays a significant role in responding to the defendant's written statement. In the Delhi High Court, the time limit for filing a replication is governed by Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ("the Original Side Rules"). This article examines the provisions of Rule 5, recent judicial decisions, and their implications on the maximum time limit for filing a replication.

Rule 5 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018

Rule 5 of the Original Side Rules provides the framework for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court. It is essential to note that this rule applies specifically to suits filed on the original side of the court. The rule establishes the initial time limit for filing a replication at 30 days from the date of service of the written statement. However, Rule 5 contains a critical limitation: "but not thereafter."

The phrase "but not thereafter" is significant, as it unequivocally restricts any extension of time beyond 15 days beyond the initial 30-day period. This means that, even in exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, the maximum allowable time for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court is 45 days from the date of service of the written statement. This strict limitation is intended to promote the expeditious resolution of cases and prevent unnecessary delays in the litigation process.

Judicial Precedent: Ram Sarup Lugani vs. Nirmal Lugani 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353:

The decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Sarup Lugani Vs. Nirmal Lugani, reported as 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1353, is of particular significance in understanding the maximum time limit for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court. In this case, the Division Bench held that the provisions of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, prevail over the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) regarding the time limit for filing a replication.

The Division Bench's ruling affirmed the supremacy of the Original Side Rules in this regard, establishing that the maximum time for filing a replication cannot exceed 45 days from the date of service of the written statement. In light of this decision, any application seeking condonation of delay in filing a replication that exceeds the 45-day limit would be dismissed.

Implications and Analysis:

The Delhi High Court's strict adherence to the 45-day time limit for filing a replication is rooted in the principles of efficiency and expedition.The decision in Ram Sarup Lugani vs. Nirmal Lugani reinforces the importance of adhering to the Original Side Rules and emphasizes the need for litigants and legal practitioners to be diligent in complying with procedural timelines. It also highlights the limited scope for seeking condonation of delay in filing a replication beyond the prescribed 45-day limit.

The concluding Note:

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's Rule 5, Chapter VII of the Original Side Rules, 2018, establishes a strict maximum time limit of 45 days for filing a replication in suits filed on the original side of the court. The decision of Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court of Delhi in Ram Sarup Lugani vs. Nirmal Lugani reaffirms the supremacy of these rules over the CPC and underscores the importance of adhering to procedural timelines. Legal practitioners and litigants should be mindful of this limitation and exercise due diligence to ensure timely compliance with the prescribed time limits for filing a replication in the Delhi High Court.

Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:29/08/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 647/2021

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6373

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, H.J.

Case Title: Atlantech Online Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Google India Pvt. Ltd.

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor: Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Marie Stopes International Vs Parivar Seva Santha

Weightage of Testimony of a Deceased Witness

Introduction

In the realm of legal proceedings, a crucial question often arises when a witness who has been examined-in-chief passes away before the completion of their cross-examination. This scenario poses a challenging dilemma for courts in assessing the value and weightage to be given to the testimony of such a deceased witness. This article delves into the legal framework surrounding this issue, particularly in the context of a recent case involving Dr. Tim Black, whose testimony was relied upon even though he expired before his cross-examination was completed.

Legal Precedents and Principles

In the case of Krishan Dayal v. Chandu Ram, 1969 SCC OnLine Del 134, the High Court of Delhi established a significant legal precedent. It ruled that a witness's statement in examination-in-chief does not become inadmissible merely due to the witness's subsequent death before cross-examination. The court can consider whether the testimony in question has been corroborated by surrounding circumstances.

A similar viewpoint was upheld by the High Court of Calcutta in Somagutta Sivasankara Reddy v. Palapandia Chinna Gangappa, MANU/AP/1284/2001.

In the case at hand, Dr. Tim Black was examined through video conferencing due to his illness. His cross-examination took place over a span of three days, from 19th to 21st August, 2014, at the High Commission of India in London. However, Dr. Black sadly passed away on 11th December, 2014, before the cross-examination could be completed. The central question that arises is the weight to be given to his testimony under the circumstances.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, taking guidance from the aforementioned legal precedents, aptly recognized that Dr. Tim Black's testimony should not be summarily dismissed due to his demise before cross-examination. Instead, the court was tasked with assessing the testimony's credibility and reliability based on the evidence presented. Notably, the court found that Dr. Black's testimony had been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of Mr. V.K. Govil. In this case testimoany of Dr. Tim Black was relied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as the same was duly corroborated by other witness.

The concluding Note:

The legal framework surrounding the testimony of a deceased witness, particularly when cross-examination remains incomplete, is well-established through judicial precedents. In such cases, the courts have consistently held that the testimony should not be deemed inadmissible solely due to the witness's death. Instead, the court must determine the weight to be attached to the testimony by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and assessing whether it is corroborated by other evidence.

Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:20/09/2023

Case No. C.S.Comm 298 of 2018

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6806

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Amit Bansal, H.J.

Case Title: Marie Stopes International Vs Parivar Seva Santha

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor: Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Kia Wang Vs Registrar of Trademark

Bad Faith and Trademark Cancellation:

Introduction:

Trademark law places a significant onus on trademark registrants to act in good faith when seeking registration and using their marks. In this article, we delve into the case of ROCKPAPA, a brand specializing in children's products, and explore the concept of "bad faith" in trademark registration, particularly in the context of trademark cancellation.

Background'

ROCKPAPA, founded in 2014 in the UK, swiftly gained international recognition for its children's products, including headphones, pencil boxes, and school bags. The brand's trademark, 'ROCKPAPA,' became widely associated with quality and innovation, extending its reach to the USA, Canada, Australia, and India in subsequent years.

In contrast, Respondent No.2 applied for the registration of the mark 'ROCKPAPA' on January 7, 2020. The mark was officially registered under Certificate No. 2500462 on September 13, 2020, as per Trade Mark Journal No. 1966. This registration stands as the focal point of the ongoing dispute.

Understanding Bad Faith:

In trademark law, "bad faith" refers to an unfair practice characterized by a lack of honest intention, a deliberate wrongdoing, and actions that deviate from accepted standards of commercial behavior. 

It entails an intention to capitalize on the goodwill associated with another party's trademark. In the case of ROCKPAPA, it is crucial to scrutinize whether Respondent No.2's adoption of the trademark 'ROCKPAPA' was conducted in bad faith.

Evidence of Bad Faith:

Several aspects of Respondent No.2's actions suggest bad faith:

1. Similarity in Mark: 

Respondent No.2 adopted a mark, 'ROCKPAPA,' strikingly similar to the Petitioner's established trademark. This similarity extended to the use of identical wording, color, font, and style. Such a blatant replication raises suspicions of an intention to confuse consumers and capitalize on the goodwill associated with the original mark.

2. Identical Goods: 

Both parties were involved in the production and sale of children's products, creating direct competition. Respondent No.2's use of 'ROCKPAPA' for identical goods further reinforces the notion of an intention to ride on the coattails of the Petitioner's brand.

3. Lack of Contest: 

Perhaps the most telling sign of bad faith is Respondent No.2's non-contestation. In the face of the Petitioner's challenge, Respondent No.2 failed to appear in the matter, did not file a counter statement, and provided no evidence to rebut the claims of prior usage. This lack of response implies a consciousness of wrongdoing and an unwillingness to defend the legitimacy of the mark.

Trademark Cancellation:

Given the evidence of bad faith, the impugned trademark 'ROCKPAPA' is vulnerable to cancellation. Trademark cancellation is a legal process that rectifies the register by removing marks that were improperly registered. In this case, it seeks to protect the integrity of the trademark system by eliminating marks that were registered in violation of the principles of good faith and fair competition.

The Concluding Note:

Trademark law is fundamentally rooted in the principles of honesty, fair competition, and protection of intellectual property rights. The case of ROCKPAPA underscores the importance of maintaining these principles in trademark registration. Respondent No.2's adoption of the mark 'ROCKPAPA' for identical goods, coupled with the absence of contestation, strongly suggests bad faith. As such, the impugned trademark should rightfully be canceled to uphold the integrity of the trademark system and protect the interests of honest trademark holders like the Petitioner.

Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement:15/09/2023

Case No. C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM)02/2021

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:6684

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Jyoti Singh, H.J.

Case Title: Kia Wang Vs Registrar of Trademark

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor: Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539