{"id":14749,"date":"2026-01-25T07:02:57","date_gmt":"2026-01-25T07:02:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=14749"},"modified":"2026-01-25T07:07:19","modified_gmt":"2026-01-25T07:07:19","slug":"delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/","title":{"rendered":"Safeguarding Electrical Brand Legacy: Key Insights from the GM vs. GMW Rectification Petition"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"introduction-delhi-high-court-trademark-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction_Delhi_High_Court_Trademark_Dispute\"><\/span>Introduction: Delhi High Court Trademark Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Introduction: Delhi High Court&#8217;s judgment in GM Modular Pvt. Ltd. versus Mumtaz Ahmed and Another exemplifies the judiciary&#8217;s commitment to upholding the rights of prior users and maintainers of goodwill in trademark disputes, particularly when subsequent registrations appear to exploit established brands without justification.<\/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\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Introduction_Delhi_High_Court_Trademark_Dispute\" >Introduction: Delhi High Court Trademark Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Case_Background_Rectification_Petition_Under_the_Trade_Marks_Act\" >Case Background: Rectification Petition Under the Trade Marks Act<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Court_Observations_Principle_of_Prior_Use\" >Court Observations: Principle of Prior Use<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Final_Outcome_Removal_of_Impugned_Mark\" >Final Outcome: Removal of Impugned Mark<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Legal_Significance_in_Indian_Trademark_Law\" >Legal Significance in Indian Trademark Law<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Trademark_Usage_and_Forms\" >Trademark Usage and Forms<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Registrations_and_Legal_Protection\" >Registrations and Legal Protection<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Brand_Value_and_Goodwill\" >Brand Value and Goodwill<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Respondents_Activities\" >Respondent&#8217;s Activities<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Discovery_of_the_Impugned_Mark\" >Discovery of the Impugned Mark<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Grounds_for_Challenge\" >Grounds for Challenge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Judicial_Precedent\" >Judicial Precedent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Summary_Table_Key_Factual_Elements\" >Summary Table: Key Factual Elements<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Notice_and_Service\" >Notice and Service<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Ex-Parte_Proceedings\" >Ex-Parte Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Final_Hearing_and_Judgment\" >Final Hearing and Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Role_of_Registrar_of_Trade_Marks\" >Role of Registrar of Trade Marks<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Summary_Table_Procedural_Timeline\" >Summary Table: Procedural Timeline<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Reasoning_And_Decision_Of_Court\" >Reasoning And Decision Of Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Goodwill_And_Market_Association\" >Goodwill And Market Association<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Impugned_Mark_Analysis\" >Impugned Mark Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Principle_Of_Prior_Use\" >Principle Of Prior Use<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Rectification_And_Removal\" >Rectification And Removal<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\" >Point Of Law Settled In The Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-gm-modular-vs-gmw-trademark-rectification\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-background-rectification-petition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Background_Rectification_Petition_Under_the_Trade_Marks_Act\"><\/span>Case Background: Rectification Petition Under the Trade Marks Act<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This case revolves around a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the petitioner sought the cancellation or removal of the respondent&#8217;s trademark &#8216;GMW&#8217; in Class 11, arguing it was deceptively similar to their own &#8216;GM&#8217; marks used since 1999 in the electrical goods sector.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Nature of proceeding: Rectification petition<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Statutory provision: Section 57, Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Disputed marks: &#8216;GM&#8217; vs &#8216;GMW&#8217;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Industry: Electrical goods (Class 11)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"court-observations-prior-use\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Observations_Principle_of_Prior_Use\"><\/span>Court Observations: Principle of Prior Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The court, presiding over an ex-parte proceeding due to the respondent&#8217;s non-appearance, emphasized the overriding principle that prior adoption and continuous use, backed by substantial goodwill evidenced through sales and registrations, prevail over later registrations that could lead to confusion or passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Petitioner<\/th><th>Respondent<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Mark<\/td><td>GM<\/td><td>GMW<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Use Since<\/td><td>1999<\/td><td>Subsequent Registration<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Proceeding<\/td><td>Rectification Petition<\/td><td>Ex-Parte<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-outcome-removal-of-mark\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Outcome_Removal_of_Impugned_Mark\"><\/span>Final Outcome: Removal of Impugned Mark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>By directing the removal of the impugned mark, the judgment reinforces the sanctity of the trademark register, preventing entries that undermine bona fide proprietors&#8217; rights and highlighting the importance of honest adoption in competitive industries like electrical appliances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"legal-significance-indian-trademark-law\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Significance_in_Indian_Trademark_Law\"><\/span>Legal Significance in Indian Trademark Law<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This decision not only builds on precedents but also serves as a cautionary tale for entities attempting to capitalize on similar marks in allied goods, underscoring the balance between registration benefits and common law protections in Indian trademark law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner, GM Modular Pvt. Ltd., is a prominent player in the manufacturing and trading of a diverse array of electrical goods, including switches, accessories, appliances, electronic components, and related services, collectively referred to as the petitioner&#8217;s goods and services. They adopted the trademark &#8216;GM&#8217; in 1999 with bona fide intent and have since used it honestly, continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively, and uninterruptedly as the proprietor thereof, building substantial trade value, goodwill, and reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"trademark-usage\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trademark_Usage_and_Forms\"><\/span>Trademark Usage and Forms<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>This mark has been incorporated into various forms such as &#8216;GM India&#8217; and device marks, extensively traded across major parts of India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"registrations-and-protection\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Registrations_and_Legal_Protection\"><\/span>Registrations and Legal Protection<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>To protect their interests, the petitioner secured multiple registrations across classes, including Class 6, 7 for &#8216;GM India&#8217; and &#8216;GM&#8217; in Class 9, 11 etc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Additionally, the artistic work in the &#8216;GM&#8217; mark is an original creation owned by the petitioner under the Copyright Act, 1957, registered as No. A-64280\/2003, and actively used in trade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"brand-value-and-goodwill\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Brand_Value_and_Goodwill\"><\/span>Brand Value and Goodwill<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Significant investments in promotion and marketing<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>&#8216;GM&#8217; synonymous with the petitioner&#8217;s identity<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Exclusive goodwill demonstrated by escalating sales figures<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"respondent-activities\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Activities\"><\/span>Respondent&#8217;s Activities<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>In contrast, Respondent No. 1, operating as Grand Metal Works, engages in selling electric fans, blowers, heaters, and accessories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"discovery-of-impugned-mark\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discovery_of_the_Impugned_Mark\"><\/span>Discovery of the Impugned Mark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>During a routine online survey of the Trade Marks Registry in the third week of August 2024, the petitioner&#8217;s attorney discovered the impugned trademark &#8216;GMW&#8217; registered under No. 1978669 in Class 11 on 11.06.2010, claiming use since 01.04.2007 for identical or similar goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"grounds-for-challenge\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Grounds_for_Challenge\"><\/span>Grounds for Challenge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner alleged dishonest adoption by the respondent, citing deceptive similarity in phonetic, visual, structural, conceptual, and essential features, with goods being allied and cognate, potentially causing confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"judicial-precedent\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Precedent\"><\/span>Judicial Precedent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Reference was made to a prior Delhi High Court decision in GM Modular Pvt. Ltd. v. Mayur Electromeck Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:2411), where a similar &#8216;GMW&#8217; mark in Class 9 was ordered removed, strengthening the case for cancellation here as the impugned mark wrongly remained on the register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"summary-table-factual\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_Table_Key_Factual_Elements\"><\/span>Summary Table: Key Factual Elements<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Aspect<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Petitioner<\/td><td>GM Modular Pvt. Ltd.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark<\/td><td>&#8216;GM&#8217;, &#8216;GM India&#8217;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Year of Adoption<\/td><td>1999<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Respondent Mark<\/td><td>&#8216;GMW&#8217;<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Registration Number<\/td><td>1978669<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Relevant Classes<\/td><td>Class 6, 7, 9, 11<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The rectification petition was filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation or removal of the impugned &#8216;GMW&#8217; mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"notice-and-service\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Notice_and_Service\"><\/span>Notice and Service<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Notice issued on 11.09.2024 granting four weeks to file replies<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>On 06.12.2024, affidavit of service noted no appearance by Respondent No. 1<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>On 16.04.2025, service directed through trademark agent<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"ex-parte-proceedings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ex-Parte_Proceedings\"><\/span>Ex-Parte Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Despite this, Respondent No. 1 failed to appear on 13.08.2025, leading to an ex-parte order against them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"final-hearing-and-judgment\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Hearing_and_Judgment\"><\/span>Final Hearing and Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The petitioner&#8217;s counsel presented submissions on 26.11.2025, after which judgment was reserved, culminating in the final decision on 17.01.2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"role-of-registrar\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Role_of_Registrar_of_Trade_Marks\"><\/span>Role of Registrar of Trade Marks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Respondent No. 2, the Registrar of Trade Marks, appeared through counsel and agreed to comply with court directions as a formal party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"summary-table-procedural\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Summary_Table_Procedural_Timeline\"><\/span>Summary Table: Procedural Timeline<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>11.09.2024<\/td><td>Notice issued<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>06.12.2024<\/td><td>No appearance by Respondent No. 1<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>16.04.2025<\/td><td>Service through trademark agent<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>13.08.2025<\/td><td>Ex-parte order<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>26.11.2025<\/td><td>Final submissions<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>17.01.2026<\/td><td>Final decision<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"reasoning-and-decision-of-court\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_And_Decision_Of_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning And Decision Of Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>The court&#8217;s analysis commenced by noting the absence of any reply or appearance from Respondent No. 1, deeming the petition&#8217;s averments uncontroverted and admitted. It scrutinized the evidence establishing the petitioner as the prior adopter and user of the &#8216;GM&#8217; marks since 1999, coined honestly and integrated into their business for electrical goods and services, supported by registrations and invoices predating the respondent&#8217;s claimed use from 2007.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"goodwill-and-market-association\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Goodwill_And_Market_Association\"><\/span>Goodwill And Market Association<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The substantial goodwill was affirmed through impressive sales data, reaching over \u20b91372 crores in FY 2020-21, indicating strong market association with the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Sales Turnover<\/td><td>Over \u20b91372 crores<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Financial Year<\/td><td>2020-21<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Brand Association<\/td><td>Strong market linkage with &#8216;GM&#8217;<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"impugned-mark-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Impugned_Mark_Analysis\"><\/span>Impugned Mark Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>The impugned &#8216;GMW&#8217; mark, registered in 2010 for similar Class 11 goods like fans and heaters, was found to be an attempt to freeride on this goodwill without explanation, violating principles of honest adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Mark in dispute: &#8216;GMW&#8217;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Year of registration: 2010<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Class: 11<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Goods: Fans, heaters and similar products<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"principle-of-prior-use\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Principle_Of_Prior_Use\"><\/span>Principle Of Prior Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Relying on settled law that prior users&#8217; rights supersede subsequent registrations, even if registered, the court highlighted the petitioner&#8217;s categorical proof of earlier use via documents, contrasting with the respondent&#8217;s later claim. Continuous, uninterrupted use further solidified the &#8216;GM&#8217; marks&#8217; association exclusively with the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The marks were deemed identical or deceptively similar for identical goods, undermining the register&#8217;s integrity and necessitating protection for bona fide owners.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"rectification-and-removal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rectification_And_Removal\"><\/span>Rectification And Removal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Citing the prior rectification in a related case for &#8216;GMW&#8217; in Class 9, the court found the entry wrongful, warranting removal under Section 57 to prevent confusion and maintain purity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>In conclusion, considering prior use, mark identity, goods similarity, confusion likelihood, and lack of bona fide intent by the respondent, the petition was allowed, directing Respondent No. 2 to remove &#8216;GMW&#8217; under No. 1978669 from the register, disposing of the petition and application, with a copy sent to the registry for compliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"point-of-law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_Of_Law_Settled_In_The_Case\"><\/span>Point Of Law Settled In The Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This judgment reaffirms that in trademark rectification proceedings under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the rights of a prior adopter and continuous user, substantiated by registrations, invoices, and escalating sales figures demonstrating goodwill, will prevail over a subsequent registered mark that is deceptively similar and adopted without bona fide intent, even in ex-parte scenarios where averments remain uncontroverted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>It underscores that prior use overrides registration, as established in precedents, emphasizing that dishonest adoption for identical or allied goods in sectors like electrical appliances warrants cancellation to preserve the register&#8217;s sanctity and prevent confusion or passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Furthermore, it highlights the evidential weight of financial data and prior judicial decisions in related marks to prove freeriding on reputation, ensuring protection for established brands against later entrants lacking justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Title<\/th><td>GM Modular Pvt. Ltd. vs Mumtaz Ahmed &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date Of Order<\/th><td>17.01.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 176\/2024<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:DHC:408<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name Of Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/th><td>Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong>&nbsp;Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Written By:&nbsp;Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, <\/strong>IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This case revolves around a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the petitioner sought the cancellation or removal of the respondent&#8217;s trademark &#8216;GMW&#8217; in Class 11, arguing it was deceptively similar to their own &#8216;GM&#8217; marks used since 1999 in the electrical goods sector. The court, presiding over an ex-parte proceeding due to the respondent&#8217;s non-appearance, emphasized the overriding principle that prior adoption and continuous use, backed by substantial goodwill evidenced through sales and registrations, prevail over later registrations that could lead to confusion or passing off. <\/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-14749","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\/14749","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=14749"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14749\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14749"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14749"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14749"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}