{"id":8000,"date":"2025-09-06T06:49:53","date_gmt":"2025-09-06T06:49:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=8000"},"modified":"2025-09-06T06:53:49","modified_gmt":"2025-09-06T06:53:49","slug":"balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/","title":{"rendered":"Balancing Prior Use and Honest Concurrent Adoption in Trade Mark Rectification"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Karim_Hotels_Pvt_Ltd_Vs_Al_Kareem_Trademark_Dispute_Case_Summary\"><\/span>Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Al Kareem Trademark Dispute Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a Delhi-based restaurant company, claimed to have used the trademark \u201cKarim\/Karim\u2019s\/Kareem\u201d since 1913 for their non-vegetarian restaurant business, mainly in Delhi and the NCR, with plans to expand. Incorporated in 1987, they held multiple trademark registrations and provided media articles (Rediff.com 2005, New York Times 2012) and financial records (2003\u20132021) to prove their reputation.<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Karim_Hotels_Pvt_Ltd_Vs_Al_Kareem_Trademark_Dispute_Case_Summary\" >Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Al Kareem Trademark Dispute Case Summary<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Dispute\" >Dispute<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Person_Aggrieved_Sections_47_and_57\" >Person Aggrieved (Sections 47 and 57)<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Section_47_Non-Use\" >Section 47: Non-Use<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Section_57_Wrongful_Registration\" >Section 57: Wrongful Registration<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Section_12_Honest_Concurrent_Use\" >Section 12: Honest Concurrent Use<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#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-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/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\/balancing-prior-use-and-honest-concurrent-adoption-in-trade-mark-rectification\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The first respondent, Al Kareem, a Hyderabad-based hotel, used the trademark \u201cAl Kareem\u201d (registered under No. 3385555 in Class 43 for restaurant services). They claimed use since 1965, supported by an affidavit from Abdul Hameed Khan, a 1996 Mutton Supply Contract, a 1996 receipt, a 2016 Zomato toolkit, and 2018 FSSAI licenses. Their 2016 trademark application was initially \u201cproposed-to-be-used,\u201d but a 2017 reply claimed use since 2001.<\/p>\n<p>Karim Hotels sought to remove \u201cAl Kareem\u201d from the Trade Marks Register under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arguing it was too similar to their mark and wrongly registered. Al Kareem countered that their mark was distinct, used honestly in Telangana, and caused no harm to Karim Hotels.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute\"><\/span>Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The main issue was whether \u201cAl Kareem\u201d should be removed from the register due to deceptive similarity with \u201cKarim\u201d or improper registration. Karim Hotels claimed prior use and national rights, while Al Kareem argued honest concurrent use and geographic separation.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Person_Aggrieved_Sections_47_and_57\"><\/span>Person Aggrieved (Sections 47 and 57)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Legal Provision:<\/strong> Sections 47 and 57 allow a \u201cperson aggrieved\u201d to seek trademark removal or rectification if harmed by the mark\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Arguments:<\/strong> Al Kareem argued Karim Hotels wasn\u2019t aggrieved, as their businesses were in different regions (Delhi vs. Telangana), citing <em>Toshiba (2009)<\/em>. Karim Hotels claimed pan-India trademark rights.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Court\u2019s Reasoning:<\/strong> Citing <em>Hardie Trading (2003)<\/em>, the court broadly interpreted \u201cperson aggrieved.\u201d Since both were in the restaurant business and Karim Hotels held registered marks, they qualified as aggrieved due to potential rights restrictions.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_47_Non-Use\"><\/span>Section 47: Non-Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Legal Provision:<\/strong> Section 47 allows removal for non-use in the five years and three months before the petition.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Arguments:<\/strong> Karim Hotels questioned Al Kareem\u2019s use since 1965, noting inconsistencies in their claims. Al Kareem provided documents showing use.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Court\u2019s Reasoning:<\/strong> Al Kareem\u2019s 1996 contract, receipt, 2016 Zomato toolkit, and 2018 licenses proved use, defeating the Section 47 claim.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_57_Wrongful_Registration\"><\/span>Section 57: Wrongful Registration<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Legal Provision:<\/strong> Section 57 allows rectification for wrongful or confusing registrations.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Arguments:<\/strong> Karim Hotels claimed use since 1913 and argued \u201cAl Kareem\u201d was deceptively similar, citing <em>S. Syed Mohideen (2016)<\/em>. Al Kareem claimed honest use since 1965, supported by evidence, and geographic limitation, citing <em>London-Rubber (1963)<\/em> and Section 12.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Court\u2019s Reasoning:<\/strong> Karim Hotels\u2019 1913 claim lacked evidence linking them to earlier users. Al Kareem\u2019s evidence of use since 1996 was sufficient, and their geographic limitation reduced confusion. The petitioner failed to prove deceptive similarity or wrongful registration.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Section_12_Honest_Concurrent_Use\"><\/span>Section 12: Honest Concurrent Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Legal Provision:<\/strong> Section 12 allows registration of similar marks if used honestly and concurrently.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Court\u2019s View:<\/strong> Al Kareem\u2019s honest use in Telangana supported retaining their mark.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Decision:<\/strong> The mark remains on the Register but with an express geographical limitation. This protects the respondent under Sections 12 and 35 while addressing the petitioner\u2019s concerns about dilution.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Al Kareem and The Registrar of Trade Marks<\/li>\n<li><strong>Order Date:<\/strong> 29-07-2025<\/li>\n<li><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> (T)OP(TM) No. 406 of 2023<\/li>\n<li><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:MHC:1859<\/li>\n<li><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judge:<\/strong> The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><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><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>Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Al Kareem Trademark Dispute Case Summary Facts Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a Delhi-based restaurant company, claimed to have used the trademark \u201cKarim\/Karim\u2019s\/Kareem\u201d since 1913 for their non-vegetarian restaurant business, mainly in Delhi and the NCR, with plans to expand. Incorporated in 1987, they held multiple trademark registrations and provided media<\/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-8000","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\/8000","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=8000"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8000\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8000"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8000"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8000"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}