As per case facts, Petitioner, a leading healthcare company, has used and registered the trademark "PANKREOFLAT" for medicinal products since the 1970s, establishing significant goodwill. Respondent No.1 later registered "KREOFLAT" ... for identical goods in the same class but failed to provide evidence of bonafide adoption or use. Petitioner sought rectification of Respondent No.1's mark due to its deceptive similarity and prior rights. The question arose whether "KREOFLAT" is deceptively similar to "PANKREOFLAT", applying a stringent test for pharmaceutical products, and if Respondent No.1's registration was valid. Finally, the Court found "KREOFLAT" to be deceptively similar and lacking bonafide use, holding that its registration was erroneous and must be removed from the Register of Trade Marks to protect public interest.