• Case Title: Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited Vs. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anr.
• Date of Order: 17 February 2025
• Case Number: R/Rectification Application No. 25 of 2023
• Neutral Citation: C/RA/25/2023
• Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
• Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Mauna M. Bhatt

Brief Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, Shrinath Travel Agency Private Limited, filed a rectification application seeking to cancel the trademark registration of respondent no.1, Ajay Kumar Sharma, on the grounds of deceptive similarity.
• The petitioner has been using the trademark "Shrinath" since 1978 in the travel and transport industry and holds multiple registrations incorporating the word "Shrinath."
• Despite the petitioner’s long-standing use, respondent no.1 obtained registration of a similar mark in 2021 and had been using it since 2014.
• The petitioner argued that the respondent’s mark was phonetically, visually, and conceptually identical to its own and that its continued existence would mislead consumers.
• A prior Delhi High Court judgment dated 6 November 2023 granted an injunction against the respondent’s use of the mark.
• The respondent contended that:
  • It had been using the trademark since 2014.
  • It complied with all procedural requirements for registration.
  • The petitioner did not oppose the registration when advertised.
  • The rectification application was filed belatedly.

Brief Issue

• Whether the trademark registered by respondent no.1 should be rectified and removed from the register on the grounds of prior use and deceptive similarity.

Reasoning of the Court

• The petitioner was the prior user and registered proprietor of the trademark "Shrinath" since 1978.
• The Delhi High Court had recognized the deceptive similarity between "Shrinath" and "Shreenath," ruling that minor differences in spelling did not eliminate confusion.
• Respondent no.1 had failed to appear before the Delhi High Court and disregarded the injunction order.
• The Gujarat High Court emphasized that the continued registration of respondent no.1’s mark would mislead consumers and harm the petitioner’s goodwill.
• The court rejected the respondent’s argument of delay, holding that:
  • Trademark rights are based on priority of use, not just registration.
  • Failure to oppose at the advertisement stage does not prevent rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Decision of the Court

• The court allowed the rectification application and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to strike off and delete the respondent’s registration.
• Held that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s prior registered mark and its continued existence would be against public interest.

Law Points Settled

• Prior user rights prevail over later registrations.
• Deceptive similarity includes phonetic and visual resemblance.
• Minor spelling differences ("Shrinath" vs. "Shreenath") do not prevent a finding of infringement if confusion arises.
• Rectification is not barred by delay:
  • Failure to oppose a trademark at the advertisement stage does not preclude rectification.
• Non-appearance and violation of injunctions can strengthen rectification claims.
• Consumer confusion justifies cancellation, as similar marks in the same industry are likely to mislead the public.
• The decision reaffirms that mere registration does not confer superior rights over a longstanding user.

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
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539