{"id":11192,"date":"2025-11-05T11:16:35","date_gmt":"2025-11-05T11:16:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11192"},"modified":"2025-11-05T11:16:38","modified_gmt":"2025-11-05T11:16:38","slug":"stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/","title":{"rendered":"Stay of Registered Trademark during pendency of Rectification Proceeding"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"factual-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case centers around a trademark dispute in the Indian spices industry, where the petitioner, Mr. Ankit Batra, proprietor of M\/s KD Industries, sought rectification and cancellation of the registered trademark \u2018KEEP DEEP &#8211; KD MASALE\u2019 owned by respondent Mr. Ravinder Kumar. The conflict arose over the use of the letters \u201cKD\u201d, which the petitioner claimed as the core part of his brand identity.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Core_Legal_Dispute\" >Core Legal Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Key_Legal_Questions\" >Key Legal Questions<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Arguments_on_Behalf_of_the_Petitioner\" >Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Arguments_on_Behalf_of_the_Respondents\" >Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/stay-of-registered-trademark-during-pendency-of-rectification-proceeding\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The petitioner\u2019s case was founded on long-standing use, reputation, and prior adoption of the trademark \u2018KD\u2019 and its label \u2018KD Masale\u2019. The petitioner asserted that his firm, M\/s KD Industries, had been using the mark \u2018KD\u2019 since 2003 in connection with manufacturing and selling spices and blended condiments. The mark had become widely recognized in both domestic and international markets, with sales and exports extending to countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner claimed that the rights in the trademark \u2018KD\u2019 were originally held by his predecessor in business, who had assigned those rights to him through a valid Assignment Deed dated 16 February 2022. Thus, by operation of both statutory and common law principles, he was the lawful proprietor and user of the trademark.<\/p>\n<p>According to the petitioner, the respondent dishonestly and with mala fide intent adopted a deceptively similar mark, \u2018KEEP DEEP &#8211; KD MASALE\u2019, under Application No. 4923053 in Class 30, which covers spices and similar goods. The petitioner argued that this imitation was deliberate and intended to exploit his established goodwill and reputation, thereby deceiving consumers and diluting the distinctiveness of his mark.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner supported his claim with evidence including invoices dating back to 2013, packaging, promotional materials, and online listings showing consistent and extensive use of the \u2018KD\u2019 mark and label for over two decades.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The petitioner approached the High Court under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation and rectification of the respondent\u2019s registered trademark on grounds of dishonest adoption and likelihood of confusion. Alongside the main petition, he filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking a stay on the operation of the respondent\u2019s registration during the pendency of the rectification proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The petition also included an application requesting the Court to summon the complete record of the impugned registration from the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks to facilitate fair adjudication.<\/p>\n<p>Upon hearing the matter, Hon\u2019ble Justice Tejas Karia issued notice to both respondents \u2014 Mr. Ravinder Kumar (the private respondent) and the Registrar of Trade Marks (as the statutory respondent). The Central Government Standing Counsel accepted notice on behalf of the Registrar.<\/p>\n<p>The respondent was directed to file a reply within four weeks, and the petitioner was allowed to file a rejoinder thereafter. Meanwhile, the Court proceeded to examine the petitioner\u2019s interim application for a stay on the respondent\u2019s mark.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-legal-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Legal_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Legal Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The principal issue before the Court was whether the registration of the respondent\u2019s trademark \u2018KEEP DEEP &#8211; KD MASALE\u2019 was valid and bona fide or whether it constituted an infringement upon the petitioner\u2019s prior rights in the mark \u2018KD\u2019.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"legal-questions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Questions\"><\/span>Key Legal Questions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether the respondent\u2019s adoption of the impugned mark was honest or tainted by mala fide intent.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the impugned mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner\u2019s registered and prior-used mark.<\/li>\n<li>Whether continued operation of the respondent\u2019s registration would cause confusion and prejudice to the petitioner\u2019s business.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the Registrar\u2019s decision to register the mark contravened Sections 9(2)(a) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"arguments-petitioner\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_on_Behalf_of_the_Petitioner\"><\/span>Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was the lawful proprietor of the trademark \u2018KD\u2019, being the assignee of the original registration (No. 1446270 in Class 30). The mark, they submitted, had been continuously and extensively used since 2003 and had acquired a strong reputation and distinctiveness in the market.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner\u2019s mark \u2018KD\u2019 formed the dominant and essential feature of his packaging, labeling, and brand presentation under \u2018KD Masale\u2019. Because the respondent\u2019s mark, \u2018KEEP DEEP &#8211; KD MASALE\u2019, prominently reproduced the same element \u2018KD\u2019 in identical font and structure, it was bound to create confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n<p>It was also pointed out that the respondent\u2019s application was filed in 2021, almost two decades after the petitioner\u2019s adoption of the mark, and that it was made on a \u201cproposed to be used\u201d basis, demonstrating the absence of prior use. The petitioner alleged that the respondent\u2019s adoption was not innocent but intentionally designed to mislead consumers and unfairly benefit from the goodwill of the \u2018KD\u2019 brand.<\/p>\n<p>Citing Sections 9(2)(a) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, counsel argued that registration of the impugned mark was in direct violation of statutory provisions, as it was both deceptive and confusingly similar to an existing registered mark. They further contended that balance of convenience and equity lay in favor of the petitioner since continued use of the impugned mark would irreparably harm his reputation and mislead the public.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"arguments-respondent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_on_Behalf_of_the_Respondents\"><\/span>Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The respondent\u2019s counsel was yet to file a formal written reply, but during oral submissions, the government counsel representing the Registrar accepted notice and agreed to furnish the complete record of the registration in question. The respondent\u2019s position, as recorded, was that the petition would be contested, though no concrete rebuttal on merits was placed on record at this interim stage.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court noticed that the petitioner had produced ample evidence of use of the mark \u2018KD\u2019 since 2003, supported by documentary proof such as invoices, packaging labels, and promotional materials. The petitioner\u2019s business, it was observed, was not limited to domestic operations but had extended internationally, thereby adding weight to his claim of distinctiveness and goodwill.<\/p>\n<p>The Court further observed that the impugned mark \u2018KEEP DEEP &#8211; KD MASALE\u2019 reproduced the essential and dominant part of the petitioner\u2019s mark \u2014 the letters \u2018KD\u2019. This similarity, both visually and phonetically, was likely to cause confusion among consumers in the same line of trade, especially because both parties operated in the same market segment (spices under Class 30).<\/p>\n<p>The Court also considered the statutory framework under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Section 9(2)(a) prohibits registration of marks that are likely to deceive or cause confusion, while Section 11 mandates refusal of registration if the mark is identical or deceptively similar to an earlier registered mark in respect of similar goods or services.<\/p>\n<p>On this basis, the Court found that the respondent\u2019s registration appeared prima facie to violate these provisions. The respondent\u2019s mark was a subsequent adoption made in bad faith and lacked originality. The Court held that the balance of convenience was clearly in favor of the petitioner, as the potential for confusion in the marketplace was undeniable.<\/p>\n<p>Court also observed that the petitioner had established both statutory rights (through registration and assignment) and common law rights (through long and continuous use), entitling him to protection even independent of registration. Allowing the respondent\u2019s registration to remain in effect during pendency of the rectification petition would, therefore, cause irreparable harm to the petitioner and mislead the public.<\/p>\n<p>In light of these findings, the Court exercised its equitable powers under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to grant interim relief.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court held that the petitioner had made out a strong prima facie case for protection of his mark and for suspension of the respondent\u2019s registration. It observed that the impugned mark \u2018KEEP DEEP &#8211; KD MASALE\u2019 incorporated the petitioner\u2019s dominant feature \u2018KD\u2019 and was likely to deceive the public and trade.<\/p>\n<p>Consequently, the High Court of Delhi ordered that the operation and effect of the registration of the impugned mark (Application No. 4923053 in Class 30) be stayed until the next date of hearing. The Court concluded that the respondent\u2019s registration was prima facie in violation of Sections 9(2)(a) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case highlights how courts protect prior and bona fide trademark owners from deceptive and opportunistic registrations that attempt to capitalize on existing goodwill. The judgment also reinforces the dual protection afforded under Indian trademark law \u2014 both statutory and common law \u2014 and emphasizes the importance of continuous, consistent use in establishing proprietorship.<\/p>\n<p>The Court\u2019s reasoning affirms the principle that in matters of trademark disputes, the dominant feature test, likelihood of confusion, and intent of adoption are crucial determinants of judicial protection. The stay granted here safeguards both commercial integrity and consumer interest until a final determination is made.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<table border=\"1\">\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Sh. Ankit Batra, Proprietor of KD Industries Vs. Ravinder Kumar &amp; Anr.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 253\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Date of Order<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>16 October 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Coram<\/strong><\/td>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p><em>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Factual Background This case centers around a trademark dispute in the Indian spices industry, where the petitioner, Mr. Ankit Batra, proprietor of M\/s KD Industries, sought rectification and cancellation of the registered trademark \u2018KEEP DEEP &#8211; KD MASALE\u2019 owned by respondent Mr. Ravinder Kumar. The conflict arose over the use of the letters \u201cKD\u201d, which<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-11192","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11192","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11192"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11192\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11192"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11192"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11192"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}