Facts: Maarg (India) Vs King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd. – Trademark Dispute Judgment 2025
Maarg (India), a registered partnership firm based in Chennai, claimed that it had coined and adopted the trademark “PTA” in 1997 for hardware items such as screws and fasteners and later designed a distinctive logo in 2001. Maarg alleged that it had built substantial goodwill in the market under the “PTA” mark and sought to protect it from unauthorized use. It discovered that King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd., a Taiwanese company, was using both “PATTA” and “PTA” marks on its hardware goods, particularly screws, which Maarg believed amounted to infringement and passing off.
Accordingly, Maarg filed a civil suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain King Point from using the marks “PTA” or “PATTA,” delivery-up, rendition of accounts, and damages of ₹50 lakhs for loss and harm. King Point, however, contended that it was the original proprietor and prior user of both “PATTA” (since 1987) and “PTA” (since 1990) internationally and in India.
- King Point claimed registration of similar marks in nearly 96 countries.
- It asserted usage in India through affiliated companies like Patta International Ltd. and Pro-Bin International Ltd.
- King Point filed a rectification petition under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to remove Maarg’s registration of “PTA” (No.1677459, Class 6).
Procedural Details
The suit for infringement and passing off (C.S. No.163 of 2018) and the rectification petition (TOP(TM) No. 32 of 2023) were jointly heard and disposed of by a common judgment owing to their identical subject matter.
King Point’s Evidence Included:
- Worldwide trademark registrations
- Export invoices and packaging materials
- Website extracts and prior court documents
Maarg’s Evidence Included:
- Partnership documents and invoices
- Alleged proof of prior use
Eleven issues were framed, focusing on:
- Prior adopter/user of “PTA”
- Whether Maarg’s adoption was dishonest
- Whether King Point infringed Maarg’s mark
- Whether Maarg’s registration should be rectified
Nature of the Dispute
The key issue was ownership of the trademark “PTA” used on screws and hardware. Maarg claimed independent creation (“Praise The Almighty”), while King Point asserted earlier international adoption and registration.
Comparison of Evidence
Party | Claim | Supporting Evidence |
---|---|---|
Maarg (India) | Coined and used “PTA” since 1997 | Invoices (2001 onwards), 1999 agreement with manufacturer |
King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd. | Using “PATTA” since 1987 and “PTA” since 1990 | Trademark certificates, export documents (1996–2005), invoices, affiliate trade links |
Detailed Judicial Reasoning
Issue of Authorization
Maarg argued that King Point’s filings were unauthorized. The Court, citing United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar (1996) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. IndusInd Bank (2005), held that lack of initial authorization is curable and can be ratified. King Point’s 2025 board resolution validated its pleadings.
Analysis on Prior Adoption and Use
- King Point showed consistent use of “PTA” since 1990 and “PATTA” since 1987.
- Export records (2002–2005) showed shipments to Indian buyers like Simco Fasteners and Amkar International.
- Maarg’s invoices described it as a “dealer of PTA screws,” implying it was not the manufacturer.
- Maarg’s documents contained inconsistencies, such as invalid phone numbers on older documents.
The Court found Maarg’s adoption dishonest, influenced by its prior business dealings with King Point affiliates like Valmax and Amkar International.
Relevant Legal Principles
- Frank Reddaway v. George Banham (1896 AC 199 HL): Copying a foreign mark dishonestly constitutes bad faith adoption.
- Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd. (2017): Transborder reputation applies if credible evidence of foreign goodwill exists.
Findings
The Court held that King Point was the prior adopter and user of “PTA.” Maarg’s registration violated Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as its adoption was not bona fide.
Judgment and Decision
- Maarg’s civil suit (C.S.No.163 of 2018) was dismissed.
- King Point’s rectification petition (TOP(TM) No.32 of 2023) was allowed.
- The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to expunge Maarg’s registration (No.1677459 – PTA, Class 6) within 30 days.
- The Court reaffirmed the principles of prior user supremacy, good faith adoption, and transborder reputation.
Case Summary
Case Title | Maarg (India) Vs King Point Enterprise Co. Ltd. |
---|---|
Order Date | 09 October 2025 |
Case Number | C.S.No.163 of 2018 & (T)OP(TM) No.32 of 2023 |
Neutral Citation | 2025:MHC:2358 |
Court | High Court of Judicature at Madras |
Hon’ble Judge | Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy |
Disclaimer
The information shared here is intended for public interest and educational purposes. Readers are advised to use discretion while interpreting the content. The views expressed may involve subjective interpretation and may contain errors in perception or presentation.
Written By
Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)
High Court of Delhi