C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 1 of 15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 31.01.2026

+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 & I.A. 5792/2024

SUNFLAME ENTERPRISES P. LTD. .....Petitioner

versus

SUMIT KISHAN SHARMA & ANR. .... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sachin Gupta, Mr. Rohit Pradhan, Mr.

Prashansa Singh, Mr. Adarsh, Mr. Ajay, Ms.

Archna and Ms. Mahima Chanchalani,

Advocates.

For the Respondents : Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Karan Kamra, Mr.

Abhishek Kotnala and Mr. Kartikeya

Tandon, Advocates for R-1.

Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC with

Mr. Saksham Sharma, Advocate for R-2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. The present Rectification Petition has been filed under Section 57 of

the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) seeking rectification of the Register of

Trade Marks by cancellation / removal of the Trade Mark, ‘SUNFLARE/

’ (“Impugned Mark”) registered under Trade Mark

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 2 of 15

Application No. 3455874 in Class 11 in favour of Respondent No. 1.

2. The Notice in the present Petition was issued vide Order dated

13.03.2024 and the Respondents were given a time of four weeks to file

their respective replies to the present Petition. The learned Counsel for the

Parties made submissions and the judgment was reserved on 15.10.2025.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner made the following

submissions:

3.1 In the year 1980, the Petitioner through its predecessor, a partnership

firm under the name and style of M/s. Sunflame Industries, started the

business of manufacturing and marketing of gas stoves under the Trade

Mark, ‘SUNFLAME / ’ (“Petitioner’s Mark”). The

Petitioner, however, was incorporated in the year 1984 under the name

Sunflame Appliances Marketing Pvt. Ltd. whose name changed to its

present name, i.e., Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. in the year 1995. The

Petitioner has grown since and is one of the leading companies engaged

in the business of manufacturing, marketing, sale and distribution of a

wide range of home and kitchen appliances, inter alia, gas stoves, gas

burners, baffle chimneys, cook tops, mixer, grinders, water heaters,

cooking range, small appliance, induction, over toaster, pressure

cookers, cookware, room heaters, water heaters and other appliances

(“Petitioner’s Products”) and have been using the Petitioner’s Mark,

continuously since the year 1980.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 3 of 15

3.2 The Petitioner for more than four decades is renowned for high-quality,

high-performance kitchen and home appliances and delivering the best

customer experience and value. The Petitioner has always met and

exceeded customer experience and assured consistent quality and

dependability with leading-edge and technical superiority and innovation

as cornerstone of its corporate philosophy. Always exploring the

possibility of new designs, technologies, features, and innovations with

great emphasis on research and development, the Petitioner has

established its leadership in creating better and quality products for its

customers. Further, its vast network of dealers and service centers across

the country ensures unfailing service and support for ultimate customer

satisfaction. The Petitioner’s Mark has acquired distinctiveness and

enviable goodwill and reputation due to its extensive, long and

continuous use since the year 1980. The Petitioner has applied for and

received various registrations for the Petitioner’s Mark, the details of

which are as under:

S. No. Trade Mark Registration

No. and date

Use claimed Class

1.

366907

30.09.1980

Proposed to

be used

Class 11

2.

448264

15.01.1986

Proposed to

be used

Class 11

3.

1257845

29.12.2003

01.08.2000 Class 11

4.

2211545

27.09.2011

01.10.2010 Class 11

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 4 of 15

5.

2627694

14.11.2013

01.01.2006 Class 11

6.

2717099

11.04.2014

Proposed to

be used

Class 11

7.

3255574

09.05.2016

01.06.2004 Class 11

8.

2211546

27.09.2011

01.09.2004 Class 21

9.

2627696

14.11.2013

01.01.2006 Class 21

10.

572529

04.05.1992

01.02.1998 Class 9

11.

448261

15.01.1986

Proposed to

be used

Class 9

12.

448262

13.01.1986

Proposed to

be used

Class 7

13.

2627695

14.11.2013

01.01.2005 Class 7

14.

3560694

31.05.2017

Proposed to

be used

Class 17

3.3 Due to superior quality and high efficacy of the Petitioner’s Products,

continuous and extensive use of the Petitioner’s Mark and large sales,

the Petitioner has acquired immense reputation and goodwill in the

Petitioner’s Mark, and the Petitioner’s Products sold thereunder. The

result of the efficacy of Petitioner’s Products sold under the Petitioner’s

Mark is reflected in its sales turnover which is growing steadily every

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 5 of 15

year. The sales turnover and the promotional expenditure of the

Petitioner’s Products under the Petitioner’s Mark since the Financial

Year (“FY”) 2013-14 until FY 2022-23 is as under:

Financial

Year

Sales (Rs. In

Lakhs)

Promotional

Expenditure

(Rs. In

Lakhs)

2013-14 24,276.37 1,246.23

2014-15 25,726.20 1,029.84

2015-16 24,778.80 956.35

2016-17 26,521.03 1,231.08

2017-18 24,552.15 1,342.12

2018-19 26,172.88 1,459.44

2019-20 26,299.75 1,602.49

2020-21 26,407.48 722.40

2021-22 34,978.54 1,141.71

2022-23 30,000.36 1,359.15

3.4 The Petitioner came across the Application No. 3455874 for registration

of the Impugned Mark and, thereafter, the Petitioner addressed a legal

notice dated 24.08.2023 (“Legal Notice”) to Respondent No. 1, wherein

the Petitioner reiterated its rights under the Petitioner’s Mark and its use

since 1980 and directing Respondent No. 1 to cease and desist the use of

the Impugned Mark. The Petitioner received a reply to the Legal Notice

dated 03.10.2023 from Kitchenopedia Appliances Private Limited, who

claimed its rights in the Impugned Mark and refused to comply with the

Legal Notice.

3.5 Respondent No. 1 has filed Trade Mark Application Nos. 5460915 and

5460916, both dated 24.05.2022, for registration of the Impugned Mark

in Classes 21 and 9 respectively, however, the same have been duly

opposed by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 is engaged in the

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 6 of 15

manufacturing / marketing and sale of gas stoves, under Class 11

(“Infringing Product”). The Petitioner has not come across any goods,

under Classes 21 and 9, using the Impugned Mark. The details of the

said Trade Mark Applications filed by Respondent No. 1 are as under:

Trade Mark Registration /

Application

No. and date

Use claimed Class &

Goods

Status

3455874 dated

11.01.2017

Proposed to

be used

Class 11: Gas

stoves,

induction,

chimney, hobs

Registered

5460915 dated

24.05.2022

27.10.2018 Class 21:

Household

kitchen

utensils, etc.

Opposed

5460916 dated

24.05.2022

27.10.2018 Class 9: TV

Sets, Mobile

accessories,

Life saving

apparatus, etc.

Opposed

3.6 Respondent No. 1 has blatantly adopted the Petitioner’s Mark with mere

replacement of ‘M’ with ‘R’ in suffix of the Impugned Mark. The

Impugned Mark is an illegal adoption and infringement of the

Petitioner’s Mark. The images of the Petitioner’s gas stove and the

Infringing Product is as under:

Petitioner’s Mark & the

Petitioner’s Product

Impugned Mark & the Infringing

Product

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 7 of 15

3.7 Respondent No. 1 has unethically and unlawfully adopted the Impugned

Mark. Being in the similar business, Respondent No. 1 is well aware of

the Petitioner’s Mark. Having seen the success of the Petitioner’s

Products under the Petitioner’s Mark, Respondent No. 1 adopted the

Impugned Mark, which is confusingly and deceptively similar, and

almost identical, to the Petitioner’s Mark. Such ingenious adoption and

coinage cannot be a mere coincidence. The adoption of the Impugned

Mark further shows slavish imitation of the Petitioner’s Mark to confuse

the public at large. There exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of

the public, which includes the likelihood of association of the Impugned

Mark with the Petitioner’s Mark.

3.8 It has been held by this Court in South India Beverages v. General

Mills, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953, that Courts should not engage in

‘technical gymnastics’ to find minor differences in conflicting marks

Further, in Marico Ltd. Vs. Mr. Mukesh Kumar & Ors.; 2018 SCC

OnLine Del 13412, it has been held by this Court that most successful

form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the

public with enough points of difference to confuse the Courts.

Infringement occurs even without side-by-side comparison if a consumer

of average intelligence, upon later seeing the defendant’s mark, is likely

to wonder about its association with the plaintiff’s. Imitation of the

central idea or commercial impression of a mark, not just its visual or

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 8 of 15

phonetic details, can also amount to idea infringement as has been held

by this Court in KRBL Ltd. v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani & Ors., 2025

SCC OnLine Del 198.

3.9 With respect to the contention of Respondent No. 1 that the Petitioner

has taken contrary stands in the reply to the examination report of Trade

Mark Application No. 2717099 for the Petitioner’s Mark ‘’,

(“Reply to the Examination Report”), it is without doubt that not only

the mark which was cited, ‘ ’ (“Cited Mark”) did

not belong to Respondent No. 1, but also, the Cited Mark has already

lapsed and, therefore, not relevant to the present case. It is settled law

that cyclostyled responses to examination report, cannot be the basis for

deciding valuable legal rights as has been held in Anil Verma v. R.K.

Jewellers, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8252. Further, this Court in Under

Armour v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del

2269, held that reply to the examination report will be relevant only

where the examination report cites respondent / defendants’ impugned

mark.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1:

4. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 made the following

submissions:

4.1 The Petitioner has sought to restrain Respondent No. 1’s use of the

Impugned Mark, which is a Device Mark, on the basis of its registration

for the Petitioner’s Mark, which is also registered as a Device Mark.

Accordingly, for any determination on similarity, the Petitioner’s Mark

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 9 of 15

would have to be compared as a whole with the Impugned Mark in order

to ascertain the deceptive similarity between the competing Marks.

4.2 Respondent No. 1 is a bona fide adopter of the Impugned Mark, which

has been openly and continuously used since 2017 for the business of

manufacturing and sale of a wide range of kitchen appliances. The

Impugned Mark is registered in Class 11 bearing Trade Mark

Registration No. 3455874. The earliest invoice under the Impugned

Mark dates back to 04.08.2017. The revenue of Respondent No. 1 is

more than ₹6,70,00,000/- since 2017 and ₹70,00,000/- has been spent on

advertising the Infringing Product in the three years prior to filing the

present Petition.

4.3 The Petitioner is guilty of taking contrary stands in its response to first

examination reports as compared to its stand in the present Suit. In its

Reply to the Examination Report, the Petitioner stated that the Cited

Mark was visually and conceptually dissimilar to the Petitioner’s Mark

in view of the ‘circle drawing’ and the differently stylized font. Thus, the

Petitioner cannot now take the stand that the Impugned Mark is visually

and conceptually deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Trade Mark. The

Petitioner cannot approbate and reporbate as has been held by this Court

in S.K. Sachdeva v. Shri Educate Ltd, 2016 (65) PTC 614 and Raman

Kwatra and Anr. v. M/s KEI Industries Ltd., 2023:DHC:000083.

4.4 The Petitioner has not disclosed that it is not the first adopter / user of

‘SUN’ formative marks under the relevant class(es). There are several

third-party registrations and users of the ‘SUN’ formative marks for

identical goods. Thus, the Petitioner cannot claim a monopoly on ‘SUN’

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 10 of 15

formative marks as has been held in Hindustan Unilever limited v.

Ashique Chemicals, 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1061.

4.5 The Petitioner has registrations over the Petitioner’s Mark, which is

registered as a Device Mark and not over the word, ‘SUNFLAME’ as its

Trade Mark Application No. 438579 for registration of the Word Mark,

‘SUNFLAME’, has lapsed on 01.06.1999. Thus, the Petitioner cannot

claim statutory rights over the word, ‘SUNFLAME’. The Petitioner also

cannot claim any statutory rights over the word, ‘SUNFLAME’ through

the Petitioner’s Mark as has been held in Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.

v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3370.

However, the Petitioner has illegally, asserted statutory rights in the

word, ‘SUNFLAME’ by relying on its registrations over the Petitioner’s

Mark, thereby misleading this Court.

4.6 It is a settled principle of Trade Mark law that competing Trade Marks

have to be compared as a whole and cannot be dissected. Registration of

a Trade Mark confers exclusive right to the use of the Trade Mark as a

whole, therefore, the enforcement of a registered Trade Mark has to be

as a whole as has been held in the judgment of Kaviraj Pandit Durga

Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, (1965) 1

SCR 737 and Superfil Products Limited a public limited v. Seal Nets

Private Limited, AIR 2015 Madras 89.

4.7 The Impugned Mark registered is inherently distinctive with a unique

colour combination and device of the word, ‘SUN’. The Impugned Mark

is in a distinct colour scheme of yellow and orange hues and there is

gradual progression of the colour from light yellow to deep orange

referencing the different intensities of a fire. In furtherance, the

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 11 of 15

Impugned Mark contains a colourless half rising sun behind the letters

with its rays coming out of it. On the contrary the Impugned Mark in a

plain red / black colour, and the Petitioner’s Mark contains a circle

behind the word in the same red / black colour. Accordingly, upon

perusing the rival Marks, it is evident that not only the rival Marks have

distinct styling of the letters and the font used, therein, but also various

other features which are completely different from each other. Thus, the

overall visual appeal of the rival Marks is completely dissimilar. The

Impugned Mark is not only visually but also phonetically, structurally

and conceptually different from the Petitioner’s Mark. The overall

concept of the Petitioner’s Mark and that of the Impugned Mark is

completely different and for the said reason, there is no scope of

likelihood of confusion, let alone, actual confusion. Even otherwise, the

Petitioner has failed to establish any secondary meaning in the word

‘SUNFLAME’. Any such acquired distinctiveness has to be proved by

way of trial as has been held in Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods

Limited, 2010 (44) PTC 736 (Del.) (DB), BigTree Entertainment Pvt.

Ltd. v. D. Sharma and Anr., [257] 2019 DLT 77, PhonePe Private

Limited v. Ezy Services and Anr., (2023) 95 PTC 154.

4.8 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the registration of the

Impugned Mark is not liable to be cancelled.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 2:

5. The learned CGSC appearing for Respondent No. 2 submitted that

Respondent No. 2 is a formal party and shall comply with any directions

passed by this Court.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 12 of 15

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

6. Having considered the averments made in the Petition and the

accompanying documents, it is evident that the Petitioner has raised

substantial challenges to the registration of the Impugned Mark, inter alia,

on the grounds of dishonest and subsequent adoption of the Impugned Mark

by Respondent No. 1. The registration of the Impugned Mark by Respondent

No. 2 is challenged as Respondent No. 1 has adopted the Impugned Mark

which completely subsumes the Petitioner’s Mark for the goods in the same

class and having overlapping trade channels and consumers.

Prior Use and Goodwill of the Petitioner’s Mark

7. The material placed on record demonstrates that the Petitioner is the

prior adopter and user of the Petitioner’s Mark. The Petitioner has been able

to establish its case of being the prior user of the Petitioner’s Mark which

was coined and adopted by the Petitioner in 1980.

8. The Petitioner has acquired considerable goodwill in the market

which is evident through the year wise annual sales data produced by the

Petitioner, which shows sales of ₹3,00,00,36,000 in the FY 2022-23.

Respondent No. 1 has applied for registration of the Impugned Mark in 2017

on a proposed to be used basis in Class 11 with respect to goods identical or

similar to the Petitioner’s Products under the Petitioner’s Mark. The

adoption of the Impugned Mark by Respondent No. 1 is nothing but an

attempt to ride the goodwill of the Petitioner’s Trade Mark without any

justification for the same.

9. It is trite law that a prior user’s rights will override the rights of a

subsequent user even though the latter’s Mark may be a registered Trade

Mark. The Petitioner has categorically pleaded use of the Petitioner’s Mark

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 13 of 15

from 1980 and the claim of prior use is substantiated by various invoices

produced by the Petitioner, therefore, it has claimed that the use of the

Petitioner’s Mark is prior to the use of the Impugned Mark by Respondent

No. 1. Respondent No. 1 has themselves applied for the registration of the

Impugned Mark in 2017 on a proposed to be used basis. Thus, it has been

established that the Petitioner is the prior user of the Petitioner’s Mark.

10. Therefore, prior use of the Petitioner’s Mark, registrations and the

continuous and uninterrupted use of the Petitioner’s Mark in the course of

trade in respect of sale, processing and marketing of the Petitioner’s

Products demonstrate that the Petitioner’s Mark has become associated with

the Petitioner.

Deceptive Similarity of the Impugned Mark

11. Respondent No. 1 has merely replaced the letter ‘M’ from the

Petitioner’s Mark, and with the letter ‘R’ in the Impugned Mark, which is

clearly an attempt to come as close as possible to the Petitioner’s Mark and

is insufficient to distinguish the rival Marks and as it has been held by this

Court in South India Beverages (supra) that Courts should not engage in

technical gymnastics to find minor differences in conflicting marks. Further,

in Marico Ltd. (supra) it has been held by this Court that most successful

form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the

public with enough points of difference to confuse the Courts. Comparing

the Petitioner’s Mark and the Impugned Mark as a whole, the Impugned

Mark is deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Mark and is likely to cause

confusion in the mind of an average consumer and therefore, the judgments

in Kaviraj Pandit (supra) and Superfil Products (supra) do not hold the case

of Respondent No. 1.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 14 of 15

12. Infringement occurs even without side-by-side comparison if a

consumer of average intelligence, upon later seeing the defendant’s mark, is

likely to wonder about its association with the plaintiff’s. Imitation of the

central idea or commercial impression of a mark, not just its visual or

phonetic details, can also amount to idea infringement as has been held by

this Court in KRBL Ltd. (supra). Having established the deceptive similarity

of the Impugned Mark and the likelihood of confusion between the rival

Marks, the decisions of this Court in Marico Limited (supra), BigTree

Entertainment (supra), PhonePe Private (supra) do not help the case of

Respondent No. 1.

CONCLUSION

13. Respondent No. 1 has subsequently adopted the Impugned Mark,

which is identical and / or deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Mark for

identical goods. Such conduct undermines the sanctity of the Register of

Trade Marks and highlights the necessity to uphold and protect the rights of

bona fide proprietors. It is evident that the entry relating to the Impugned

Mark is wrongly remaining on the Register of Trade Marks warranting

rectification under Section 57 of the Act.

14. Accordingly, there exists an irrefutable and real likelihood of

confusion in the minds of the public. The Impugned Mark is deceptively

similar to the Petitioner’s Mark, thereby creating likelihood of confusion and

deception in the trade and among consumers. Such adoption is with a mala

fide intent to capitalize on the Petitioner’s established goodwill and

reputation. Hence, the registration granted in favour of the Respondent No. 1

is violative of Section 9(2)(a) and Section 11 of the Act. The Petitioner has

not suppressed any material fact and has revealed all material facts before

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 39/2024 Page 15 of 15

the Court and are not guilty of approbating and reprobating their stand and

therefore, the decisions in S.K. Sachdeva (supra) and Raman Kwatra

(supra) will not hold the case of Respondent No. 1.

15. In view of the Petitioner’s prior use, the identity of the competing

Marks, the similarity of goods, the likelihood of confusion, and the lack of

bona fide adoption or use by Respondent No. 1, the Impugned Mark is liable

to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

16. Accordingly, the present Petition is allowed, and Respondent No. 2 is

directed to remove / expunge / rectify the Impugned Mark, ‘SUNFLARE

/ ’ registered under Trade Mark Application No. 3455874 in

Class 11 from the Register of Trade Marks.

17. The present Petition and the pending Application stand disposed of.

18. A copy of the present order is directed to be sent to the Trade Mark

Registry at e-mail: llc-ipo@gov.in, for necessary compliance.

TEJAS KARIA, J

JANUARY 31, 2026/‘AK’