{"id":5922,"date":"2025-07-05T10:18:04","date_gmt":"2025-07-05T10:18:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=5922"},"modified":"2025-07-05T10:18:17","modified_gmt":"2025-07-05T10:18:17","slug":"burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/","title":{"rendered":"Burden of Proof in Trademark Opposition"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Avient_Switzerland_GMBH_Vs_Treadfast_Ventures_Anr\"><\/span>Avient Switzerland GMBH Vs. Treadfast Ventures &amp; Anr.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 01 July 2025<\/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\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#Avient_Switzerland_GMBH_Vs_Treadfast_Ventures_Anr\" >Avient Switzerland GMBH Vs. Treadfast Ventures &amp; Anr.<\/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\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#Case_Overview\" >Case Overview<\/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\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#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-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#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-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#Legal_Issues\" >Legal Issues<\/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\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/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\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >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\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#Final_Decision\" >Final 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\/burden-of-proof-in-trademark-opposition\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 44\/2024<\/p>\n<p><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:5104<\/p>\n<p><strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Overview\"><\/span>Case Overview<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case involves a trademark dispute between Avient Switzerland GMBH, a global chemical manufacturer, and Treadfast Ventures, concerning the registration of the mark \u2018RENOL\u2019 in Class 2. The primary issue was whether the appellant had established prior use and proprietorship over the mark \u2018RENOL\u2019 in India, in the face of opposition by the respondent who owns the registered trademark \u2018REINOL\u2019 in Classes 1 and 3. The High Court of Delhi was called upon to assess the legality and sustainability of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks rejecting the appellant\u2019s application for the mark \u2018RENOL\u2019.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The trademark \u2018RENOL\u2019 was originally adopted by Clariant AG, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant, Avient Switzerland GMBH, as far back as 1905 in Germany. The appellant claimed international use of the mark and specifically asserted use in India since December 26, 2001. An application for registration in India under Application No. 1336157 in Class 2 was filed on February 3, 2005, with a priority claim from August 11, 2004. The specification was later narrowed to colorants for resins.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast, the respondent Treadfast Ventures owned the trademark \u2018REINOL\u2019, with registrations in Classes 1 and 3, dating back to 1984 and 1991. These marks were claimed to be used in India since those respective years. The respondent filed an opposition to the appellant\u2019s application based on similarity and likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Trade Marks Registry issued an Examination Report in 2005, which did not cite the respondent\u2019s mark as a conflicting registration. The appellant filed responses and amended the user claim to reflect use since December 2001. The mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal in 2016.<\/p>\n<p>The respondent filed a Notice of Opposition in 2017 but later chose not to submit any evidence under Rule 45 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. In contrast, the appellant submitted evidence of use, including invoices dated December 16, 2001. Hearings were conducted across 2019, 2022, and 2023. On February 12, 2024, the Assistant Registrar passed the impugned order allowing the opposition and rejecting the appellant\u2019s application, leading to the present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Issues\"><\/span>Legal Issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in allowing the opposition and rejecting the application without proper consideration of evidence.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the respondent\u2019s mere registration of a similar trademark, without evidence of use, could justify refusal of the appellant\u2019s application.<\/li>\n<li>Whether the marks \u2018RENOL\u2019 and \u2018REINOL\u2019 were deceptively similar in law to warrant rejection of the appellant\u2019s mark under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar &amp; Co., FAO (OS) 46\/1976:<\/strong> Cited by the respondent to argue that registration confers presumptive validity. The appellant argued that proprietorship requires actual use.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., 1959 SCC OnLine SC 11:<\/strong> Asserted by the appellant that registration alone doesn\u2019t establish use or goodwill.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Gupta Enterprises v. Gupta Enterprises &amp; Anr., AIR 1998 Delhi 232:<\/strong> Used to argue that the burden of proof lies on the opponent in opposition proceedings.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., MANU\/SC\/1619\/2017:<\/strong> Respondent claimed foreign use doesn\u2019t imply Indian goodwill. Court found it inapplicable since respondent also didn\u2019t prove Indian use.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co., (1997) 4 SCC 201:<\/strong> Trademark rights are not perpetual and can be challenged based on non-use.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Patel Field Marshal Agencies v. P.M. Diesels Ltd., MANU\/SC\/1509\/2017:<\/strong> Reiterated that registration has rebuttable presumption of validity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court found that the Assistant Registrar failed to consider key evidence, including the invoice dated December 16, 2001. The respondent did not file any supporting documents under Rule 45. The Court held that while registration provides prima facie validity, the burden of proof lies with the opponent, who failed to discharge it.<\/p>\n<p>The Court emphasized that allied and cognate classes do not automatically lead to confusion. Actual evidence of confusion or reputation is necessary. The Assistant Registrar\u2019s order lacked proper reasoning and factual analysis and was thus unsustainable.<\/p>\n<p>It was further clarified that a valid registration must be accompanied by active use and proof of reputation to succeed in opposition proceedings under Section 11.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal. The impugned order dated February 12, 2024, was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a fresh adjudication in accordance with law and on merits. The Registrar was directed to conclude the matter within six months. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits, leaving that to the Registrar.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Mere registration does not grant an absolute right to oppose another mark without proof of use and reputation.<\/li>\n<li>The burden of proof in opposition lies first with the opponent.<\/li>\n<li>The Registrar must holistically evaluate all evidence and not rely solely on pleadings.<\/li>\n<li>Foreign use and international registration do not establish user rights in India.<\/li>\n<li>Similarity in allied and cognate classes does not automatically result in refusal; actual confusion must be demonstrated with evidence.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Avient Switzerland GMBH Vs. Treadfast Ventures &amp; Anr. Date of Order: 01 July 2025 Case Number: C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 44\/2024 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5104 Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee Case Overview This case involves a trademark dispute between Avient Switzerland GMBH, a global chemical manufacturer, and Treadfast Ventures, concerning the registration<\/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":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-5922","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5922","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=5922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}