{"id":11976,"date":"2025-11-19T11:16:05","date_gmt":"2025-11-19T11:16:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11976"},"modified":"2025-11-19T11:19:41","modified_gmt":"2025-11-19T11:19:41","slug":"rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/","title":{"rendered":"Rectification Proceedings Do Not Freeze Trademark Rights"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"brief-introductory-head-note-summary-of-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Brief_Introductory_Head_Note_Summary_of_the_Case\"><\/span>Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case concerns a trade mark infringement dispute relating to the compost bin product known as \u201cBOKASHI BUCKET\u201d. The plaintiff, Rajeev K.P., who owns the registered trademark for the term BOKASHI BUCKET, approached the court seeking a temporary injunction preventing the defendant, Unais K.K., from selling an identical product using the same trademark. The trial court rejected the application for temporary injunction, but the Kerala High Court reversed that decision and granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff.<\/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\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Brief_Introductory_Head_Note_Summary_of_the_Case\" >Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of the Case<\/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\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#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-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Procedural_Detail\" >Procedural Detail<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/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\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Detailed_Reasoning_Including_Judgment_with_Citations\" >Detailed Reasoning Including Judgment with Citations<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Undisputed_Facts\" >Undisputed Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#On_Rectification_Argument\" >On Rectification Argument<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#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\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Concluding_Note\" >Concluding Note<\/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\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#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\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/rectification-proceedings-do-not-freeze-trademark-rights\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<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>The plaintiff is the proprietor of Global Pharmaceuticals, and claims to have introduced an innovative composting product under the registered trademark BOKASHI BUCKET, which is scientifically designed to convert biodegradable waste into manure. The plaintiff asserts that due to extensive usage, promotional activities and presence in the market, the product enjoys wide reputation, especially with repeated procurement by Suchitwa Mission and local government authorities.<\/p>\n<p>According to the plaintiff, distributors discovered that an identical compost bin was being sold by the defendant. It was alleged that the defendant copied the overall appearance, design, configuration and features of the plaintiff\u2019s product and further used the words \u201cBOKASHI BUCKET\u201d, thereby infringing the plaintiff\u2019s registered trademark and passing off his goods as those of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-detail\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Detail\"><\/span>Procedural Detail<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff filed a suit in the Additional District Court, Manjeri, along with an application for interim injunction. Initially, an ad-interim injunction was granted; however, after the defendant appeared and filed objections, the trial court vacated the injunction through its order dated 23.08.2025, holding that there was no prima facie case, and that balance of convenience and irreparable injury did not favour the plaintiff. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed FAO No.118 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court under appellate jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The pivotal legal issue before the High Court was whether the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the trade mark BOKASHI BUCKET, was entitled to a temporary injunction on the ground of trademark infringement, especially when the defendant was also using the term \u201cBOKASHI BUCKET\u201d to market identical goods.<\/p>\n<p>A side issue argued by the defendant was that a rectification petition was already filed before the Trade Marks Registry against the plaintiff\u2019s registration. Hence, according to the defendant, failure of the plaintiff to file counter statement meant that the registration had become ineffective, extinguishing the plaintiff\u2019s statutory rights.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"detailed-reasoning-including-judgment-with-citations\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning_Including_Judgment_with_Citations\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning Including Judgment with Citations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The High Court first clarified that since the plaintiff confined the appeal only to the ground of trademark infringement, aspects of design registration, patent claims and prior user were not germane for consideration.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"key-undisputed-facts\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Undisputed_Facts\"><\/span>Undisputed Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>The plaintiff held valid trademark registration for \u201cBOKASHI BUCKET\u201d.<\/li>\n<li>The defendant was using the same term (\u201cBOKASHI BUCKET\u201d).<\/li>\n<li>Both parties were selling identical goods \u2013 compost bins.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>This combination brought the case squarely within Section 29(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, which states that infringement occurs when there is identity of both trademark and goods, resulting in deemed likelihood of confusion. Section 29(3) mandates that in such situations the Court shall presume confusion.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court\u2019s landmark decision in <strong>Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai &amp; Others, (2022) 5 SCC 1<\/strong>, which clarified that in an infringement action, once identity of the marks and goods is established, no further inquiry into confusion or deception is necessary. The Supreme Court had reiterated earlier positions laid down in:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980<\/em><\/li>\n<li><em>Ruston &amp; Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Court highlighted that in an infringement matter, arguments regarding get-up, packaging and price difference are irrelevant if the essential features of the registered trademark are adopted by the defendant.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"on-rectification-argument\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_Rectification_Argument\"><\/span>On Rectification Argument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Regarding the defendant\u2019s argument that failure to file counter-statement in rectification proceedings resulted in extinguishment of trademark rights, the High Court interpreted Rule 98 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and held that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Non-filing of counter-statement only allows the rectification applicant to proceed with evidence.<\/li>\n<li>There is no statutory consequence of deeming the registration as void or inoperative due to this delay.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Therefore, the Court held that so long as the trademark remains on the register, the statutory protections under Sections 28 and 29 remain fully enforceable.<\/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 High Court concluded that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The plaintiff had a strong prima facie case.<\/li>\n<li>Balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff because permitting the defendant to continue use of the registered trade mark would dilute statutory rights.<\/li>\n<li>Irreparable injury would occur if infringement continued during the pendency of the suit.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Accordingly, the order of the trial court was set aside, and a temporary injunction was granted restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or promoting compost bins under the name \u201cBOKASHI BUCKET\u201d, until disposal of the suit.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"concluding-note\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Concluding_Note\"><\/span>Concluding Note<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This judgment reinforces the principle that once a trademark is validly registered, the statutory right of exclusivity under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act becomes absolute in infringement matters. Even ongoing rectification proceedings do not dilute trademark protection unless the registration is removed through a final order. The case further underscores that infringement analysis is distinct from passing off, and where identity of mark and goods is established, injunction becomes a legal consequence rather than a discretionary relief.<\/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>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Rajeev K.P. Vs Unais K.K.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Order Date<\/th>\n<td>18 November 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Number<\/th>\n<td>FAO No.118 of 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025:KER:87639<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Hon\u2019ble Judge<\/th>\n<td>Justice S. Manu<\/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<h2 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of the Case This case concerns a trade mark infringement dispute relating to the compost bin product known as \u201cBOKASHI BUCKET\u201d. The plaintiff, Rajeev K.P., who owns the registered trademark for the term BOKASHI BUCKET, approached the court seeking a temporary injunction preventing the defendant, Unais K.K., from selling an<\/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":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-11976","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11976","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=11976"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11976\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}