Bombay High Court Cancels ‘TRACTORJUNCTION’ Trademark, Finds Registration Secured Through Bad Faith and False User Claim
Bombay High Court Cancels ‘TRACTORJUNCTION’ Trademark, Finds Registration Secured Through Bad Faith and False User Claim
Introduction
The Bombay High Court allowed a rectification petition and ordered cancellation of the trademark “TRACTORJUNCTION,” holding that it was obtained in bad faith and wrongly remained on the register. Justice Arif S. Doctor held that the impugned registration was liable to be removed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Factual Background
The dispute arose between Rajat Kumar, the petitioner, and Shivankar Gupta, the registered proprietor of the mark “TRACTORJUNCTION” in Class 35. The petitioner claimed prior adoption of the mark in 2014 and continuous use since at least 2016 in relation to his business activities.
He alleged that the respondent’s application filed in 2018 was dishonest and intended to usurp his established goodwill. It was further contended that the respondent had secured registration by filing a false affidavit of the user, despite not having actually used the mark.
Procedural Background
The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court seeking rectification of the trademark register and cancellation of the impugned registration. Despite being served, the respondent failed to appear or contest the allegations, leaving the petitioner’s claims uncontroverted.
Issues
1. Whether the trademark “TRACTORJUNCTION” was registered in bad faith.
2. Whether the registration was liable to be removed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
3. Effect of uncontroverted allegations and absence of evidence of use by the registered proprietor.
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioner contended that he was the prior adopter and continuous user of the mark and that the respondent had fraudulently obtained registration by falsely claiming prior use. He argued that the impugned entry was wrongly remaining on the register and liable to be removed.
The respondent did not appear before the Court to contest the petition or deny the allegations.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner had placed sufficient material to establish prior use of the mark. It further noted that the respondent had failed to substantiate claims of earlier use allegedly dating back to 2011 through another entity and had not produced any evidence of assignment or continuous use.
The Court attached significance to the respondent’s absence and failure to contest the allegations, observing that the uncontroverted pleadings and silence indicated lack of bona fides. It also took note of an investigation report suggesting that the respondent had never actually used the mark, thereby rendering the affidavit of the user false.
The Court held that such conduct amounted to bad faith and fraud on the Trade Marks Registry. It concluded that the registration violated statutory provisions, including Sections 11(10) and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, and could not be permitted to remain on the register.
Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed the petition and directed removal of the trademark “TRACTORJUNCTION” from the register, holding that the registration was obtained fraudulently and in bad faith.
