Court finds bona fide use of trademark by Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries; discrepancies in user date and mark usage deemed non-substantial.
In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, dismissed a rectification petition filed by M/s. Sree Lakshmi Balaji Industries against Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Rice Industries. The petition sought to rectify the trademark registration on grounds of discrepancies in the user date and alleged non-use of the registered mark.
The case, which revolved around the use of a pictorial representation of Lord Ayyappa on rice products, was brought before the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board by the petitioner on April 1, 2016. The petitioner argued that the first respondent's trademark was liable for rectification due to a mismatch in the user date recorded in the application and the advertisement, alongside substantial differences between the registered and used trademarks.
Justice Ramamoorthy, however, found that the evidence presented, including invoices from 1993 to 2015, demonstrated continuous bona fide use of the trademark. The court noted that while there were variations in the pictorial depiction of Lord Ayyappa, these did not substantially alter the identity of the trademark. As per Section 55 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, such use is deemed sufficient to establish bona fide use.
The judgment emphasized that the absence of records due to their destruction could not conclusively prove misrepresentation or fraud by the first respondent. Furthermore, the court highlighted that the trademark's use included the trading name and brand, affirming its identity.
The court also addressed the absence of permission for trademark alteration under Section 59, noting that any future infringement action would require a comparison between the registered mark and the mark used by the petitioner.
The decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks on a complaint under Section 107 was deemed irrelevant to the current proceedings, as it had been overturned in prior judicial proceedings.
The petition for rectification was ultimately dismissed, with the court concluding that the petitioner failed to establish grounds for rectification under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 - Alleged discrepancy in user date and non-use of registered mark - Non-substantial alterations in mark usage not liable for rectification; bona fide use established under Section 55.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 47, 55, 57, 59, 107 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
