Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. v. Kamal Bansal

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 542/2022

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. against Kamal Bansal, directing the removal of the registered trademark 'VKG'. The court found that 'VKG' was confusingly similar to the petitioner's prior and well-established mark 'VKC', which had been used since 1985 in respect of footwear. Crucially, the court noted that the respondent failed to demonstrate actual use of the impugned mark, leading it to conclude that the registration was obtained dishonestly to trade upon the petitioner's goodwill.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 542/2022
Judge(s)
Amit Bansal

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd. vs Kamal Bansal is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCS(COMM) 669/2023 & I.A. 1530/2023

landmark crafts private limitedvssohan lal gupta

M/s Landmark Crafts Private Limited sued M/s Sohan Lal Gupta alleging infringement of its trademark 'HP'. The dispute centered on the identical packaging and color combination used by both parties for competing products, raising concerns about passing off. The Defendants agreed to change their product's packaging.

trademarkCOMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.111 OF 2014 WITH LEAVE PETITION NO.107 OF 2014

asian paints limitedvsjain paints

Asian Paints Limited sued Jain Paints for trademark infringement concerning the marks 'APEX', 'GOLD DRY APEX', and 'AZPER' used on exterior emulsion paints (Class 02). Defendant No. 2 admitted in their written statement that a stay would not significantly impact them as they were not manufacturing, marketing, or selling the infringing goods.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 766/2022

Vijay Baweja Proprietor Of Ms Vijay Auto SalesvsAjay Baweja Trading As Ajay Auto Spares & Anr.

The Delhi High Court addressed a rectification petition filed by Vijay Baweja against Ajay Baweja concerning the trademarks 'AIRGOLD' and 'AIR GOLD (Device)'. The court accepted the petitioner's application to summon the original records related to these marks from the CGPDTM. The core dispute revolves around the joint ownership of the mark, which was subsequently assigned exclusively by the respondent without obtaining a necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the petitioner.

trademark(T)OP(TM) No.512 of 2023

R.K.Steel Industries Partnership FirmvsR.K.Impex India Private Limited

The Madras High Court allowed a petition filed by R.K.Steel Industries seeking rectification of a trademark registration held by R.K.Impex India Private Limited. The court found that there was considerable visual similarity between the two marks, specifically due to the shared 'R.K.' letters and the display of screw sizes on the label. Given this striking resemblance, the court ruled that the mark registered in 2019 could confuse consumers and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the register.

trademarkC.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 697/2022 & C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 81/2023

Puma SevsSh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills (Regd) and Anr.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Puma Se, ordering the cancellation and removal of two trademarks ('and/PUMAXE (Label)') registered by Sh Jugal Kishore Jain T/A M/S Ashish Jain Textile Mills. The court found that the impugned marks were deceptively similar to Puma's prior and well-known 'PUMA' trademark, which is associated with identical goods (clothing, footwear). Furthermore, the court noted a lack of continuous use by the respondent for one of the marks, reinforcing the grounds for rectification under the Trade Marks Act.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call