Bombay High Court Upholds Higher Protection for Well-Known Marks, Cancels ‘VISTARRAAH’
Bombay High Court Upholds Higher Protection for Well-Known Marks, Cancels ‘VISTARRAAH’
Introduction
The Bombay High Court has directed the removal of the trademark “VISTARRAAH” from the Trade Marks Register, holding it to be deceptively similar to Air India Ltd.’s well-known airline brand “VISTARA.” The Court held that permitting such a mark to remain on the register would undermine the integrity and purity of the trademark system.
Factual Background
Air India is the registered proprietor of the trademark “VISTARA” in multiple classes in India, with registrations dating back to 2014. The brand, launched as a joint venture between Tata Sons and Singapore Airlines, commenced commercial operations in January 2015 and has since acquired substantial goodwill and nationwide recognition.
The dispute arose when Air India challenged the registration of the mark “VISTARRAAH” in Class 31, covering agricultural and horticultural goods. The impugned mark was registered in the name of Girish Basrimalani, with a claimed user date of February 2017. Air India contended that it also holds registrations in allied and related classes and uses the Vistara brand in connection with food, hospitality, and related services, making consumer confusion likely despite the difference in goods.
Procedural Background
Air India filed a rectification petition before the Bombay High Court seeking cancellation of the “VISTARRAAH” mark. The matter was heard by Justice Arif S. Doctor, who delivered the order on December 10, 2025. Despite service of notice, the respondent failed to appear or contest the proceedings, leading the Court to proceed ex parte.
Issues
1. Whether “VISTARRAAH” was deceptively similar to the earlier trademark “VISTARA.”
2. Whether registration of the impugned mark violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
3. Whether the respondent’s conduct reflected bad faith adoption.
4. Whether a well-known trademark is entitled to protection even across allied or unrelated classes.
Contentions of the Parties
Petitioner: Air India argued that “VISTARA” is a well-known trademark, recognised as such by the Delhi High Court and included in the official list maintained by the Trade Marks Registry. It submitted that the respondent had filed multiple similar applications across various classes many of which were withdrawn or abandoned demonstrating an absence of bona fide intent and an attempt to capitalise on Vistara’s goodwill.
Respondent: The respondent did not appear or place any material on record to establish honest adoption, bona fide use, or lawful justification for registration of the impugned mark.
Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Arif S. Doctor compared the rival marks and held that “VISTARRAAH” is phonetically identical and visually and structurally similar to “VISTARA.” The Court observed that minor spelling variations or stylisation do not alter the overall commercial impression formed by an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
The Court emphasised that well-known trademarks enjoy a higher degree of protection, extending even to allied or related goods and services. It found that use of the impugned mark was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with Air India’s Vistara airline brand.
The Court also took note of the respondent’s pattern of filing similar marks across classes and his failure to contest the proceedings, holding that these factors pointed towards bad faith adoption. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Khoday Distilleries Limited v. Scotch Whisky Association, the Court observed that trademarks adopted in bad faith undermine the purity of the Trade Marks Register and are liable to be removed.
Decision
The Bombay High Court allowed Air India’s rectification petition and directed that the trademark “VISTARRAAH” be cancelled and removed from the Register of Trade Marks. The Court held that continued registration of a mark deceptively similar to a well-known trademark would be contrary to law and detrimental to the trademark system.
In this case the petitioner was represented by Ms. Geetanjali Vishwanathan a/w Ms. Drumi Nishar i/b Mr. Mayank Samuel.
