As per case facts, Satya Paul, the Petitioner, a prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ARUN for sewing machines since the early 1960s, sought to cancel the Respondent's ... deceptively similar trademark AiC ARUN, registered later. The Petitioner demonstrated long and continuous use, extensive advertising, and successful legal actions to protect its mark. The Respondent argued that ARUN was generic and that the Petitioner's failure to oppose registration barred the current challenge. The question arose whether the Respondent's mark was deceptively similar and if the Petitioner's prior rights justified rectification despite the lack of initial opposition. Finally, the Court found overwhelming evidence of the Petitioner's prior and continuous use, establishing goodwill and reputation. It concluded that AiC ARUN was deceptively similar, rejecting the generic argument and the bar due to non-opposition. The Court ordered the deletion of "ARUN" from the Respondent's mark, allowing them to use "AiC" with other differentiating words.