As per case facts, the Petitioner filed a Rectification Petition to cancel Respondent No. 1's 'SUNFLARE' trademark, claiming prior and continuous use of its 'SUNFLAME' mark since 1980 for similar ... kitchen appliances. Petitioner asserts extensive goodwill and that Respondent No. 1's mark is deceptively similar, adopted dishonestly, and causes public confusion. Respondent No. 1 countered with bona fide adoption, distinctiveness, and Petitioner's alleged inconsistent stands. The question arose whether 'SUNFLARE' is deceptively similar to 'SUNFLAME' and if its registration should be cancelled based on prior use and likelihood of confusion. Finally, the Court ruled in favor of the Petitioner, confirming its prior use and significant goodwill. It found Respondent No. 1's adoption of 'SUNFLARE' to be dishonest and deceptively similar, creating confusion. The registration was deemed to violate the Trade Marks Act, and thus, the Impugned Mark was ordered to be removed from the Register.