CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 1 of 25

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 24.02.2026

Judgment delivered on: 08.04.2026

+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021

+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 393/2021

SHUBHAM GOLDIEE MASALE PVT. LTD .....Petitioner

versus

JAI SHIV OIL INDUSTRIES AND ANR. .....Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman and

Ms. Deasha Mehta, Advocates

For the Respondents : Mr. Nishant Gautam, CGSC with

Mr. Vineet Negi, Ms. Kavya Shukla,

Mr. Naman Sharma and Ms. Theresa, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed under Sections 47, 57 and 125 of

the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the

petitioner seeking, inter alia, the following prayers:-

In so far as CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 is concerned, the prayers

are as under:

“In view of the abovementioned facts/ statement of case and the

abovementioned grounds for revocation/ cancellation/ rectification, it is

most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Board may kindly be pleased

to:

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 2 of 25

(i) remove/ cancel/ expunge/ rectify the entry pertaining to impugned

Trade Mark “GOLDI (LABEL)” registered under no.945240 in class 29.

(ii) Stay the effect and operation of the entry pertaining to impugned

Trade Mark “GOLDI(LABEL)” registered under no.945240 in class 29

during the pendency of the present proceedings.

Any other relief(s) which is fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

including an order for costs of the proceeding to petitioners.”

In so far as CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 393/2021 is concerned, the prayers

are as under:

“In view of the abovementioned facts/ statement of case and the

abovementioned grounds for revocation/ cancellation/ rectification, it is

most respectfully prayed that this Hon‟ble Board may kindly be pleased

to:

(i) remove/ cancel/ expunge/ rectify the entry pertaining to impugned

Trade Mark “GOLDI (LABEL)” registered under no.2023762 in class

31.

(ii) Stay the effect and operation of the entry pertaining to impugned

Trade Mark “GOLDI(LABEL)” registered under no.2023762 in class 31

during the pendency of the present proceedings.

Any other relief(s) which is fit and proper in the facts and circumstances

including an order for costs of the proceeding to petitioners.”

2. Since the factual matrix arising in both the petitions are substantially

common, the grounds of challenge too are common, therefore, the two

petitions are being disposed of vide this common judgment.

BACKGROUND FACTS: -

3. Petitioner claims to be a company duly incorporated under the Indian

Companies Act, 1956, and has its office in Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. Petitioner

claims to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing food

products for human consumption including spices and other allied and related

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 3 of 25

goods under the name and style of M/s Shubham Goldiee Masale Private

Limited.

4. Petitioner is the proprietor of the trademark “GOLDIEE” and Goldiee

formative marks in relation to the aforesaid goods. The word “GOLDIEE”

also forms part of the petitioner’s trade name. It is stated that through the

predecessors, the petitioner adopted the said trademark in the year 1980, and

have been continuously and uninterruptedly using the said trademark till date.

5. By virtue of being the prior and senior adopter and user of the said

trademark, petitioner’s claim that the said mark has acquired distinctiveness in

the market and trade, and identifies the said goods and business as exclusively

originating from the petitioner’s alone. Petitioner states that on account of

their high quality products under the said trademark, the trademark has

become source identifier for the petitioner and its goods.

6. Petitioner states that the trademark “GOLDIEE” has acquired a

tremendous goodwill reputation in the market and rely upon the sales figures

from the year 2000 when its turnover was Rs.43 Crores which reached Rs.297

Crores in the FY 2012-13 under said mark.

7. Petitioner states that the promotion of the said goods and their business

under the mark “GOLDIEE” has been extensively achieved through print,

audio/visual media, advertisements and publicity in leading newspapers,

distribution of trade literature, trade hoardings etc. Petitioner states that they

have incurred enormous amounts of money and efforts on such promotional

events. Predicated thereon, the petitioner’s assert that the mark “GOLDIEE”

has acquired a secondary meaning which denotes and relates to the

petitioner’s exclusively. The petitioner’s and its activities are disseminated

through their website www.goldiee.com. The petitioner has appended with the

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 4 of 25

petition, documentary evidence in support of use and dissemination of the

mark “GOLDIEE”. The oldest registration of the “GOLDIEE” label is of

01.10.1980, and the subsequent trademarks registered by the petitioner are

enumerated in the list as under :-

8. It is stated that the products of the petitioner under the mark

“GOLDIEE” are available to the consumers all over the country through a

network of around 1200 distributors and C & F agents. Petitioner states to

have achieved ISO 9001:2000 certification in the year 2005, and in the year

2007 also obtained HACCP certification. Petitioner also has established an in-

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 5 of 25

house laboratory under the supervision of quality control chemist and food

technologist for ensuring and maintaining standards in the quality of the food

products it manufactures. It is claimed that the GOLDIEE Group has done

sampling of its products to all the participants in the Delhi Marathon Event,

2010, and in the Mumbai Marathon Event, 2011. The petitioner was also

conferred various awards by the Government of India for the excellence in the

food products manufactured by it.

9. Petitioner also asserts that it has been extremely vigilant in protecting

its right in the mark “GOLDIEE” and has been instituting various civil as well

as criminal actions against infringers and counterfeiters and has been able to

obtain favourable orders on that score.

10. Petitioner claims that it came to know about the impugned adoption and

illegal user by the respondent no.1 of the trademark “GOLDI” (label) under

the trademark applications bearing nos.945240 and 2023762 in Class 29 and

Class 31 respectively only in late August, 2014, wherein the respondent no.1

has falsely urged the user of the impugned trademark from 01.01.2000.

Petitioner states that the respondent no.1 has dishonestly, malafidely and by

claim fraud upon the Trade Marks Registry obtained the said mark registered

in its favour. Petitioner states that the respondent no.1 was fully aware of the

petitioner’s registered trademark “GOLDIEE” and the associated goodwill,

reputation, use and exclusivity even at the time when it applied for registration

of its mark. Petitioner claims that the adoption is illegal and malafide. The

petitioner also states that there is clear deceptive similarity in both the marks

in terms of phonetic, visual, structural and conceptual basis. Petitioner asserts

that the adoption is tainted and with a view to ride on the coattails of the

petitioner’s substantial goodwill and reputation. That apart, petitioner asserts

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 6 of 25

that the continuation of the impugned registration in the name of the

respondent no.1 would clearly dilute its own registered mark “GOLDIEE”.

11. Impugning the registration of the trademark “GOLDI” (label) both

under Classes 29 and 31, the present rectification petitions were originally

filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”), and upon its

abolition were transferred to this Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

12. Mr. Suman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the present facts would clearly entitled the petitioner in seeking

cancellation/rectification of the impugned mark “GOLDI” from the Register

of Trade Marks simply on the facts that the petitioner undoubtedly is a prior

user since the year 1980 as also being the registered trademark owner of the

mark “GOLDIEE” (label) on 01.10.1980, while the respondent no.1 filed its

application in the year 2000 in Class 29 in relation to mustard oil (edible oil)

and was granted registration only on 16.09.2005. Insofar as the registration of

the impugned mark “GOLDI” in Class 31 in relation to foodstuffs (oil cake)

for animals is concerned, the registration was granted on 16.03.2012. Thus,

according to him, even if one were to consider the challenge on the basis of

the admitted dates of user and the actual registration granted, clearly the

petitioner would not only be the prior adopter and prior user, but also the prior

registrant for the mark “GOLDIEE”.

13. Learned counsel next urged that the registered trademark of the

petitioner “GOLDIEE” and the impugned mark “GOLDI” of the respondent

no.1 on a comparison clearly indicate that the deception and confusion the

public could face is apparent. According to learned counsel, both the marks

are visually, phonetically, structurally identical or deceptively similar.

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 7 of 25

Learned counsel would further contend that there is practically no difference

in the pronunciation of both the marks. Equally, he would submit that

conceptually too, there is no distinction. That apart, he would contend that the

trade circle, the distribution channel, the retail outlets as well as the consumers

would be common too, since, both the petitioner as also the respondent no.1

are in the business of manufacturing edible oils. In such circumstances,

according to him, the consumer base would also be common.

14. He stoutly contended that in the above circumstances it would be clear

that an unwary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection

would get confused or deceived into believing the goods of the respondent

no.1 to be those of the petitioner or associated with the petitioner.

15. He would contend that when all the aforesaid parameters are considered

compositely, it would be apparent that both the marks are deceptively similar

and since the petitioner is a prior adopter, prior user and a prior registrant of

the mark “GOLDIEE”, the existence of the impugned mark “GOLDI”

registered in favour of the respondent no.1 cannot be permitted to continue to

remain in the Register of Trade Marks. To substantiate his contention and to

further submit that the petitioner’s statutory and common law rights are

longstanding and continuous, he relied on the judgment passed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court in Fybros Electric (P) Ltd. v. Vasu Dev

Gupta Trading as Vasu Electronics, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3179.

16. Learned counsel also forcefully stated that the respondent no.1 has

tendered no explanation as to how and on what basis did it coin or adopt the

word “GOLDI” as its trademark. He would contend that the registration

obtained by the respondent no.1 is clearly by playing fraud upon the Registrar

of Trade Marks while applying for registration. He further stated that the

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 8 of 25

respondent no.1 was proceeded ex-parte, and has not offered any counter

response to the petitions or to the claims made by the petitioner.

17. Learned counsel also contended that the respondent no.1 obtained the

registration of the impugned mark fraudulently and by material misstatements

as to its user, goodwill and reputation. He would contend that the said fraud

and misstatement would disentitle the respondent no.1 from continuing with

its mark “GOLDI” in the Register of Trade Marks.

18. Learned counsel also contended that the impugned mark “GOLDI” is

not distinctive of the impugned goods either at the time when the application

was applied for or at the time when the registrations were obtained, hence,

barred by the provisions of Section 9 of the Act.

19. Learned counsel would also contend that the impugned registration is

barred under the provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 18 of the Act.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

20. This Court has heard the arguments of Mr. Amitabh Suman, learned

counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings on record and closely

examined the records of the case.

21. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to note the history of the

proceedings, which is as under:-

a. The present petitions were transferred to this Court and listed

before the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 18.01.2022,

consequent to the abolition of the IPAB. Consequently, court notice was

issued to both respondent nos.1 and 2 alongwith their counsel on

29.08.2022.

b. Respondent no.2 was duly served through its counsel, as recorded

in the order dated 16.12.2022. However, court notice of respondent no.1

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 9 of 25

was awaited as on that date. Respondent no.2 is a formal party and was

recorded as such for the first time in the order dated 12.09.2023.

c. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an impleadment application

bearing I.A. Nos.9925/2024 in C.O.(COMM-IPD-TM) 392/2021 and

8904/2024 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 393/2021, seeking to implead

respondent no.3 as a party on the ground that the impugned trademark

had been assigned by the respondent no.1 vide Assignment Deed dated

17.09.2015 to the proposed respondent no.3.

d. Vide order dated 06.11.2024, the service upon both respondent

no.1 and proposed respondent no.3 was completed, and vide order dated

19.02.2025, respondent no.3 was arrayed as a party. Vide order dated

01.05.2025, right of the respondent nos.1 and 3 to file their replies were

closed, and vide the order dated 04.08.2025, both the respondents were

proceeded ex-parte.

22. It is observed from the records and office noting of the case that though

the respondent no.1 was served on 04.11.2024, however, has chosen to remain

absent throughout. Subsequently, respondent no.3 was impleaded on the

ground that it was assigned the impugned mark. It was also served with the

notice of the petitions, however chose not to appear or file its reply. Therefore,

there is no material or rebuttal either in the form of pleadings or the

documents in answer to the allegations contained in the petitions. Though it is

trite that in the absence of any opposition, the averments contained in the

petitions, and the documents annexed thereto are deemed to be admitted and

judgement can be pronounced, however, this Court would still proceed to

consider the petitions on its own merits.

23. In the present case, it would be relevant and necessary for this Court to

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 10 of 25

appreciate the evidence in the form of documents which have not been

rebutted. The first line of documents would be the registrations obtained by

the petitioner for the mark “GOLDIEE”. It would be apposite to extract

hereunder the following documents:-

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 11 of 25

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 12 of 25

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 13 of 25

24. In comparison to the aforesaid, it would be appropriate to examine the

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 14 of 25

trademark application and registration of the respondent no.1 placed on record

by the petitioner. The same are reproduced hereunder:-

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 15 of 25

25. On a close scrutiny and examination of both the set of documents, it is

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 16 of 25

noted that the respondent no.1 applied for a device mark “GOLDI” (label) on

04.08.2000 with a user detail of 01.01.2000 in Class 29 in relation to

manufacture of mustard oil (edible oil), and on 15.09.2010 for the device mark

“GOLDI” (logo in Hindi) with the user detail of 01.01.2000 in Class 31 in

relation to manufacture of foodstuffs (oil cake) for animals. In contrast

thereto, the petitioner had applied for the registration of its trademark

“GOLDIEE” (label) on 01.10.1980 and for the label mark “GOLDIEE” (in

Hindi and English) on 27.03.1996 in Classes 29 and 30.

26. From the aforesaid examination itself, it appears that not only is the

petitioner a prior adopter and a prior user but also a prior registrant of the

mark “GOLDIEE” both in Classes 29 and 30. There does not seem to be any

plausible reason as to why and wherefrom the respondent no.1 has adopted the

impugned mark “GOLDI” for the same class of goods i.e. edible oil and

foodstuffs. On a simple and plain comparison of the two words “GOLDIEE”

and “GOLDI”, this Court has no doubt that both words are phonetically,

visually and structurally nearly identical and deceptively similar. Except for

the removal of the letters “EE” from the mark “GOLDIEE” of the petitioner,

there is no substantial or apparent distinction, inasmuch as the pronunciation

would still remain identical and visually both are nearly similar. Moreso, in

the Hindi version, there would be no visual or structural distinction and the

pronunciation would be identical. Though the comparison of the whole of the

labels may have certain distinctions when the other elements of the labels are

compared, however, the manner, the font and the structural formation in which

the word “GOLDI” is written in Hindi in the mark of the respondent no.1 and

that of the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is clear

deceptive similarity between both. It is to be noted that the mark “GOLDIEE”

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 17 of 25

in Hindi in both the labels of the parties, particularly the label of the

respondent no.1 is the prominent/dominant part of the label. Clearly the

confusion is writ large in the sense that even if the impugned mark “GOLDI”

in Hindi is stated to be slightly distinct, yet would at least show or indicate its

association with the petitioner and not the respondent no.1. This would be

impermissible.

27. It has to be kept in mind that both parties are in the similar business i.e.,

edible oils as also foodstuffs. From the documents on record, it appears that

the trade circle, distribution channels as also the retail outlets would be

common between both the parties. The consumers who would purchase the

product of both parties undoubtedly would be common. Though, so far as

manufacture of oil cake for animals by the respondent no.1 may be a distinct

category, however, it is asserted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said

goods are also available in the same common retail outlets. If that be so, then

the confusion and deception between the two rival marks would also get

attracted to the oil cake for animals manufactured by the respondent no.1.

28. The petitioner has placed on record documents to establish the

substantial growth in the sales figures from the year 2000-01 till 2012-13. The

figures clearly established that by the time the respondent no.1 applied for

registration of impugned mark “GOLDI” in the year 2000, with the user detail

of 01.01.2000, the petitioner was already a well established brand having a

turnover of Rs. 43 Crores for the same class of goods. The sales figures noted

above and reproduced by the petitioner is extracted hereunder:-

YEAR TURNOVER

2000-01 434,407,906

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 18 of 25

2001-02 501,707,005

2002-03 633,808,964

2003-04 736,690,017

2004-05 765,424,470

2005-06 966,847,927

2006-07 1,108,807,668

2007-08 1,347,917,420

2008-09 1,825,379,861

2009-10 2,296,692,374

2010-11 2,806,684,012

2011-12 2,746,753,392

2012-13 2,970,544,597

29. The petitioner has filed voluminous records containing the

advertisement and other promotional material published in newspapers from

the years 2001 till 2010-11, which indicate that the petitioner had incurred

substantial expenditure for promotion and advertisement of its trademark

“GOLDIEE”, and the products manufactured by it in order to promote the said

mark. Some of the promotions and advertisements carried out in the

vernacular newspapers is extracted hereunder:-

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 19 of 25

The petitioner has also placed on record some sample invoices to

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 20 of 25

substantiate and support the assertion that the petitioner has been

manufacturing and offering for sale products under the registered trademark

“GOLDIEE”. One of such invoice is extracted hereunder:-

30. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon the judgments of this

Court in Fybros Electric (P) Ltd. (supra) and FDC Limited vs. Docsuggest

Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6381. in support of his

contentions. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be apposite to extract the

relevant paragraphs of the judgment in Fybros Electric (P) Ltd., (supra),

which are reproduced hereunder:

“26. The petitioner's mark is registered in Classes 9 and 11 and the

respondent's mark is registered in Class 11. Mr. Mishra sought to

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 21 of 25

contend that, even though the petitioner has registration in Class 11,

proof of user of the asserted FYBROS mark is only available with respect

to goods relatable to Class 9. In other words, he submits, there is no

material to indicate user of the asserted FYBROS mark in respect of any

other goods, even if the mark is registered for various goods both in

Classes 9 and 11.

27. The submission is, to my view, misconceived in view of the specific

words in which Section 11(1)(b) is couched. Section 11(1)(b) proscribes

registration of a trademark if, on account of (i) its similarity to an earlier

trademark and (ii) the identity or similarity of the goods or services

covered by the trademark, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the

part of the public. The expression “covered by the trademark” cannot be

equated, in my view, with the words “in respect of which the mark is

used”. Coverage of a trademark has to be decided on the basis of the

certificate of registration which sets out the goods in respect of which the

trademark is registered. All such goods would be “covered by the

trademark”.

[emphasis supplied]

Thus, the registration of the trademark “GOLDIEE” of the petitioner in

Classes 29 and 30 shall preclude the respondent nos.1 and 3 from using

identical or deceptively similar trademark “GOLDI”. With respect to the

registration of the respondent no.1 for the mark “GOLDI” (in Hindi) in Class

31 for foodstuff (oil cake) for animals is concerned, the counsel for the

petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in FDC (supra). The relevant

paragraph is reproduced hereunder:

“51. There can be no doubt, and it needs no discussion to say that the

mark “Zifi” of the plaintiff and “Ziffi” of the defendant are phonetically,

structurally and visually similar. In any event, this aspect is also

discussed a little later. The prime issue in this case, therefore, is whether

the goods of the plaintiff and the services of the defendants are

allied/cognate or not. Allied/cognate goods or services, as understood

from the material referred to below, are those goods/services which are

not identical, but can be said to be related or similar in nature (See

McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Fourth Edition, Vol

5). The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles Fifth

Edition 2002, Vol. 1. defines the term “Allied” as “connected by nature

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 22 of 25

or qualities; having affinity” and the term “Cognate” as “akin in origin,

nature or quality”. Reference may also be made to New Webster's

Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language, 1992 which defines

“Allied” as “relating in subject or kind” and “Cognate” as “1. adj.

having a common ancestor or origin (of languages or words) having a

common source or root (of subjects etc.) related, naturally grouped

together.”. Cognate goods/services can be described, inter alia, as goods

or services which have a trade connection - as in glucose and biscuits

(See Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR

1960 SC 142) or which are intended for the same class of customers - as

in television picture tubes (parts thereof, video tapes and cassettes and

television tuners etc.) and televisions, tuners and T.V. Kits (See Prakash

Industries Ltd. v. Rajan Enterprises (1994) 14 PTC 31), or are

complementary to each other - as in toothbrushes and toothpaste (See

HM Sariya v. Ajanta India Ltd. (2006) 33 PTC 4).

52. In the present case, the plaintiff is using the registered mark „Zifi‟ for

goods falling under Class 05 of the Schedule of the Act i.e. pertaining to

pharmaceutical preparations. On the other hand, the defendants are

using the mark „Ziffi‟ for booking of appointments for doctors,

diagnostics, spas and salons, and have applied for registration under

Class 35 and 42 of the Schedule of the Act. It is the submission of the

defendant that goods and services falling under different classes cannot

be allied and cognate. I do not find merit in this submission. The

classification of goods and services under Section 7 of the Act is not the

criterion for deciding the question of similarity in goods/services.

Reliance may be placed on K.C. Kailasam/Ramu Vedaraman's Law on

Trade Marks & Geographical Indications 1st Edition, 2003 wherein, the

learned author on Page 180 has stated as under-

“Classification of goods given in the rules not the criterion

Whether or not two sets of goods or services are of the same

description is not be decided on the basis of the classification of

goods and services given in the 4th schedule to the Trade Marks

Rules, 2002. The description of goods may be narrower or wider

than any of the classes according to the circumstances of the case.

As was observed by LINDLEY J., in the Australian Wine Importers

Trade Mark case [(1889) 6 RPC 311]. “If you come to look at that

classification, you will find goods of the same description, in one

sense, in different classes; and you will find goods of different

description in the same class”.”

[emphasis supplied]

The ratio in FDC (supra) appears to postulate that while the similarity

in marks is being examined, the Court may have to consider myriad aspects

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 23 of 25

like the test of perceiving the goods from a business and commercial point of

view; the nature, intended purpose, method of use, competition with each

other or the complimentary nature of the goods and services offered; the users

and the uses of the goods and services; the trade channels; the distinctive

character of a trademark and its reputation, in order to ascertain whether the

goods are cognate and/or allied in nature.

31. In the present case, it has been asserted by the petitioner that the goods

are similar and/or allied and cognate in nature to that of the class of goods

falling within Class 30 (foodstuffs) except that the goods manufactured by the

respondent no.1 i.e., oil cake is for animals falling in Class 31. However, he

would assert that the said items are available for sale in the same retail outlets

as the items manufactured by the petitioner under Class 30 in relation to

foodstuffs. It is the assertion of the petitioner that the purchasers who

approach the same retail store would have the impression, albeit false, that the

oil cake of the respondent no.1 is that of the petitioner or that it is associated

with the petitioner. Either way according to him, the confusion and deception

is most likely.

32. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner, with no rebuttal or contrary

assertion by the respondent no.1, coupled with the judgments in Fybros

Electric Ltd. and FDC (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the

parameters set out in the judgments would be applicable in the present case.

Clearly, the aforesaid analysis evidences that the marks are structurally,

visually, phonetically and conceptually deceptively similar. The distribution

channels, the retail outlets for products manufactured by both parties too are

common, and the consumer base is most likely to be common. In such

circumstances it is likely that an unwary consumer with average intelligence

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 24 of 25

and imperfect recollection may tend to get confused or deceived into

purchasing the goods of the respondent no.1 as those of the petitioner, and so

far as the oil cake for animals is concerned, is most likely to associate the

product as either manufactured by the petitioner or at least associated with it.

33. Even otherwise the provisions of Section 47(1)(a) of the Act, in the

absence of any opposition, as also in the absence of any evidence as to how

and in what manner respondent no.1 adopted the mark “GOLDI” which was

registered, support the contention that such adoption is without bonafide

intention, and in the absence of any evidence on record to establish the use of

the said mark three months before the date of application, require removal of

such mark from the Register of Trade Marks. Similarly, the provisions of

Section 9(2)(a) and Section 11(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, if applied to the

aforesaid facts, would bar registration of the mark “GOLDI”.

34. On the overall conspectus of the matter, it leaves little doubt in the mind

of the Court that not only are the two marks phonetically, visually and

structurally nearly identical and deceptively similar, but conceptually too there

does not seem to be any distinction. In such circumstances, it is trite that two

identical/deceptively similar marks that too in the same Class and in relation

to similar/identical goods cannot continue to remain on the Register of Trade

Marks. Equally, it is relevant to note that both parties are in the same business

of manufacture of mustard oil (edible oil) and foodstuff, which would also

include oil cake for animals though stated to be manufactured only by the

respondent no.1. The trade circles, the distribution network and the retail

outlets too are common and the consumers of the products manufactured by

both parties also are common. Under these circumstances, two rival marks of

the nature described above cannot continue to remain on the Register of Trade

CO(COMM.IPD-TM) 392/2021 & connected matter Page 25 of 25

Marks.

35. In view of the above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

impugned trademark “GOLDI” of the respondent nos.1 and 3 cannot continue

to remain on the Register of Trade Marks, and consequently is directed to be

cancelled and removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

36. The Registrar of Trade Marks/respondent no.2 shall comply with the

aforesaid direction within a period of six weeks from date.

37. The petitions are disposed of alongwith any pending application in

above terms, however, no orders as to costs.

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

(JUDGE)

APRIL 08, 2026/rl/Sumit/anj