Delhi High Court
Volkswagen Ag vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks And Anr on 12 March, 2026
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 20th November, 2025
Date of decision:12th March, 2026
Date of uploading: As per digital signature
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024
VOLKSWAGEN AG .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Jayant Kumar, and Ms. Ruchi
Singh, Advs.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS
AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC with Mr.
Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advs. for R-1
Mr. Prashant Gupta and Mr. Jithin M.
George, Advs. for R-2
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 13.12.2023
[‘impugned order’] passed by the Respondent No. 1/Registrar of Trade
Marks, whereby it dismissed the opposition filed by the Appellant against
trademark application no. 2990453 filed by the Respondent No. 2/Maruti
Suzuki India Limited for the mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ in Class 12.
2. Appellant is the owner of the mark ‘4MOTION’ [Appellant’s mark’]
registered under trademark registration no. 1388469 in Class 7, 12,28, 35
and 37 on 27.09.2005.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 1 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
Factual Matrix
3. The Respondent No. 2 filed the trademark Application for the mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ [‘impugned mark’] in class 12 on 22.06.2015 in
respect of vehicles; apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water on a
proposed to be used basis. Respondent No. 1 accepted the said application
for the impugned mark and advertised the same in the Trade Mark Journal
No. 1803 dated 26.06.2017.
3.1 Appellant, upon learning about the advertisement, filed a Notice of
Opposition against the impugned mark on 25.10.2017 on the ground of its
similarity with the Appellant’s mark.
3.2 Respondent No. 1, vide its impugned order, dismissed the opposition
filed by the Appellant and registered the impugned trademark application of
the Respondent No. 2.
Submissions by the Appellant
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that Respondent’s mark is
phonetically, visually and conceptually similar with the Appellant’s mark.
The rival marks when compared, are deceptively and/or confusingly similar.
4.1 He states that its mark ‘4MOTION’, which is pronounced as
‘FORMOTION’ is a uniquely coined word and has no dictionary meaning,
and the Respondent No. 2 has adopted/copied the Appellant’s mark in
entirety and merely added the prefix ‘TRANS’ to it. He states that the
addition of the prefix ‘TRANS’ to Appellant’s mark ‘4MOTION’ is
inconsequential and does not make it distinctive as ‘FORMOTION’ is also
the essential feature of the Appellant’s mark. He relies upon the Supreme
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 2 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
Court judgement Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna
Pharmaceuticals Laboratories1.
4.2 He states that the sound of the impugned mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is deceptively similar with the sound of the mark
‘4MOTION’. The sound of the prefix ‘TRANS’ is inconsequential since
‘FORMOTION’ is the dominant part of the impugned mark. He relies on the
judgement Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd v. Allied Blender &
Distillers Pvt. Ltd.2, and Greaves Cotton Ltd. v. Mr. Mohammad Rafi &
Ors3.
4.3 He states that the Appellant’s mark is an “earlier trademark” which
attained registration on 29.03.2008 as against the Respondent No. 2, who
filed its trademark application on 22.06.2015 on a proposed to be used basis.
Further, a mark which is deceptively similar to an earlier trademark is not
liable to be registered.
4.4 He states that the two marks are similar also on account of their
semantic resemblance. He refers to the judgments of Shree Nath Heritage
(supra), whereby the Court had held the mark ‘COLLECTOR’S CHOICE’
to be deceptively similar with the mark ‘OFFICER’S CHOICE’ and in the
case of Vinita Gupta v. Amit Arora4 whereby the Court held the mark
‘NUAPPEPLANT’ to be deceptively similar to the mark ‘APPLESTREE’.
Submissions by the Respondent No. 1
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 states that it is a settled law
that a trademark has to be read as a whole and cannot be dissected. Even if
1
AIR 1965 SC 980 at paragraph no. 29.
2
221(2015) DLT 359(DB) at paragraph nos. 19 and 82.
3
2011 SCC OnLine Del 2596 at paragraph nos. 16 and 24.
4
2022 DHC 4060 at paragraph nos. 29,30,39.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 3 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
the Appellant’s mark ‘4MOTION’ is pronounced as ‘FORMOTION’, it is
different from the Respondent No. 2’s mark, which is pronounced as
‘TRANSFORMOTION’. The presence of one common element in the
competing marks is irrelevant, especially when the final impression
produced by the marks is sufficiently distinct from each other.
5.1. She states that the question as to whether the two rival marks are
likely to give rise to confusion or not, is a question of first impression. In the
impugned mark, the Prefix ‘TRANS’ is the distinguishing feature of the
Respondent’s mark and makes the Appellant’s mark visually and
phonetically different.
5.2. She states that the resemblance between the two rival marks is to be
seen with reference to the ear, as well as, to the eye. It is apparent that the
visual appearance is very different. The sound of ‘TRANSFORMOTION’
does not resemble with’4MOTION’. The Appellant’s mark starts with a
numeric i.e., ‘4’, and makes it visually different from the Respondent No.
2’s mark.
5.3. She states that the impugned mark is capable enough to distinguish
the goods of the Respondent No. 2 from others and there is no likelihood of
confusion or association with the Appellant’s goods. Both the conflicting
marks must be compared in its entirety and when seen in entirety, they look
different, and there exists no likelihood of confusion or deception in the
minds of general public or any likelihood of association between the two
rival marks.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 4 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
Submissions by the Respondent No. 2
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 states that Appellant’s
mark ‘4MOTION’consists of a numeral conjoined with the word
‘MOTION’, while Respondent No. 2’s mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is a
single word. The first syllable in the Appellant’s mark is the numeral ‘4’,
whereas, the first syllable in the Respondent No. 2’s mark is the word
‘TRANS’. The Appellant cannot be permitted to dissect the Respondent No.
2’s mark and compare a part of the said mark with its own mark and allege
similarity of the marks. He refers to the judgement of F. Hoffman-la Roche
& Co. ltd v. Geoffrey Manner & Co. Pvt. Ltd5.
6.1. He states that Appellant’s own documents filed before the Trade
Marks Office, states that ‘4MOTION’ is allegedly an intelligent all-wheel
drive system or in other words the name of a technology introduced by the
Appellant for its automobiles. The Appellant is directly referring
‘4MOTION’ to be the name of its technology, hence, it is using the term in a
generic sense, and thus the same does not qualify as a trade mark and
deserves to be cancelled.
6.2. He states that the word ‘MOTION’ means “the act or process of
moving, or a particular action or movement”. Being synonymous with
vehicles and automobile, the same is very commonly used in the automobile
industry. A simple search on the website of the Trade Marks Office reveals
that there exist several trade marks (both registered and pending) in class 12,
filed in relation to automobiles and vehicles, which consist of the word
‘MOTION’6.
5
(1969) 2 SCC 716 at paragraph 8.
6
At page 5 of the additional documents filed by the Respondent No. 2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 5 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
6.3. He states that since the word ‘MOTION’ in the two rival marks is
commonly used in trade, greater regard should be paid to the uncommon
element in the two marks i.e. “4” v. “TRANSFOR”, which are completely
different and distinct. In such case, it is virtually impossible for one mark to
be mistaken for or confused with the other. He refers to the judgment of J.R.
Kapoor v. Micronix7.
6.4. He states that as per the Appellant’s own documents, the mark
‘4MOTION’ was introduced in India in 20178.On the other hand, the
Respondent No.2 has filed, on record, documents dating back to 20169,
which establishes that it had started using the mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’
in India much prior to the Appellant. Appellant has failed to show any use
and/or reputation of its mark ‘4MOTION’either in India or internationally.
6.5. He states that since the Respondent No. 2’s mark stands to be
registered, the present appeal is not maintainable and the same is time
barred.
Findings and Analysis
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the record.
8. The Appellant is the registered proprietor of the mark ‘4MOTION’
(word) under no. 1388469 in classes 7, 12, 28, 35 and 37, with its
registration dating back to 27.09.2005. On 25.10.2017, the Appellant filed a
Notice of Opposition (bearing no. 905287) against Respondent No.2’s trade
mark application no. 2990453 in class 12 (dated 22.06.2015), for the mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ (word). By impugned order, the Respondent No.1
7
1994 Supp (3) SCC 215 at paragraph 6.
8
At page 130 of the paper book
9
From page 255 to 262 of the paper book
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 6 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
dismissed the Opposition filed by the Appellant. The Respondent No.2’s
trademark application has since proceeded to registration.
The present appeal has been filed assailing the Impugned Order on
grounds, which can be summarised as under:
(i) Appellant has raised a ground that, when compared as a whole,
Respondent No.2’s mark is phonetically, visually and conceptually
similar to Appellant mark; it contends that the mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is deceptively similar with the
Appellant’s prior adopted and prior used mark ‘4MOTION’. It
contends that the Respondent No. 2’s mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ has incorporated the Appellant’s mark‘4MOTION’ in its entirety. The Appellant contends that the two
marks are similar also on account of semantic resemblance as the
idea of the Appellant behind conceiving the mark ‘4MOTION’
pertains to its technology and Respondent No. 2 has similarly
captured this idea to convey about its own technology.
On the other hand, Respondent No. 2 has contended that there
is no similarity in the two marks, as its mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is a single word, and when compared as a
whole with Appellant’s mark ‘4MOTION’, there is no deceptive
similarity in its structure. It contends that the rival marks have to
be compared as a whole, and the argument of the Appellant
wrongly dissects the mark and selectively compares a part of the
impugned mark to raise the averment of similarity; also, the plea of
semantic resemblance raised by the Appellant in these proceedings
was never raised in the opposition proceedings before the Registrar
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 7 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
and this plea, therefore, cannot be considered at this stage.
(ii) Appellant states that its mark ‘4MOTION’ should be read and
pronounced as ‘FORMOTION’. Respondent No.2 has adopted an
identical mark as that of the Appellant and has just added the
prefix ‘TRANS’ to it, which is inconsequential. It contends that the
addition of the prefix ‘TRANS’ does not makes the impugned
mark different from the Appellant’s mark ‘4MOTION’.
On the other hand, Respondent No. 2 contends that the word
‘MOTION’ is public juris for the automobile industry and the
Appellant herein is seeking to monopolize the said word in these
proceedings. The Appellant has relied upon the registrations held
by several other proprietors of the mark, which consist of the word
‘MOTION’, to substantiate the plea that the word ‘MOTION’ is
commonly used in the automobile industry and is therefore aptly
used by the parties in the said industry. It contends that the word
‘MOTION’ in the two rival marks has to therefore be discounted,
and the comparison, in part (if at all) should be on the prefix of the
rival marks, i.e., ‘4’ versus ‘TRANSFOR’, which is completely
different and distinct.
(iii) Appellant contends that its mark is an ‘earlier trade mark’ as its
mark ‘4MOTION’ was a registered trademark as on the date of
filing of the impugned trademark application by the Respondent
No. 2. While, the Respondent No. 2 has contended that the
documents placed on record, show that, whereas the Respondent
No. 2 started using the mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ in 2016, the
first use of the mark by the Appellant in India is only of the year
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 8 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
2017; the Appellant has failed to show any reputation whatsoever
of its alleged mark ‘4MOTION’ either in India or internationally.
(iv) Appellant has also raised the ground that there is strong likelihood
of confusion as Appellant’s goods are already in the market and
have acquired reputation. To this, the Respondent No. 2 contends
that there is no question of any confusion or deception amongst the
members of the public and trade by the use of the mark
TRANSFORMOTION’, as Respondent No.2 started using its mark
much prior to the Appellant’s trademark.
9. The Respondent No. 1 has opposed the appeal and relies upon the
findings returned by the Registrar, at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the impugned
order, which reads as under:
“8. I have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the documents on
record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Corn Products vs Shangrila Food
Products Ltd. AIR 1960 SC 142 has held that ‘in deciding the question of
similarity between two marks; the marks have to be considered as a whole.
It is not right to take apart the word and compare it with the part of the other
words: one word must be considered as a whole and compared with the
word as a whole.’
It is settled law that a mark has to be read as a whole and cannot be
dissected. If we look at the marks of the parties, the applicant’s mark is
‘TRANSFORMOTION’, whereas the Opponent’s mark is ‘4MOTION’.
The mark of the applicant cannot be dissected into ‘TRANS’ and
‘FORMOTION’. The opponent has argued that the opponent’s mark is
phonetically pronounced as ‘FORMOTION’, hence both the marks are
phonetically similar. I am of the opinion that even if the opponent’s mark is
pronounced as ‘FORMOTION’, it is different from the applicant’s mark,
which is pronounced as ‘TRANSFORMOTION’. The presence of one
common element in the competing marks is irrelevant, especially when the
final impression produced by the marks is sufficiently distinct from each
other. The question that whether the two marks are likely to give rise to
confusion or not, is a question of first impression and if we see the
impugned mark, the Prefix ‘TRANS’ is the distinguishing feature of theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 9 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
applicant’s mark and makes the applicant’s mark visually and phonetically
different from the opponent’s mark. The Resemblance between the two rival
marks is to be seen with reference to the ear as well as to the eye. The sound
of ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ does not resemble ‘4MOTION’. It is apparent
that the visual appearance is very different. The opponent’s mark starts with
numeric ‘4’ and makes it very different visually from the applicant’s mark.
Thus, on the whole it can be said that both the rival marks visually look very
dissimilar and phonetically they both sound different too. On first
impression, the dissimilarity appears to be clear and more striking to the
naked eye and ears, than any similarity between the part of the mark.
9. The impugned mark is capable to distinguish the goods of the applicant
from others and there is no likelihood of confusion or association with the
opponent. Both the conflicting marks must be compared in its entirety and
when seen in entirety, they look different and there exists no likelihood of
confusion or deception in the minds of general public or any likelihood of
association between the mark of the opponent and the applicant’s mark.
Overall the applicant’s mark is visually, structurally and phonetically
different from the Opponent’s mark.
Thus in view of the reasons given above, I deem it fit to dismiss the instant
Opposition and accept the Present Application for registration without going
into further merits of the case.”
Respondent No. 1 contends that the Respondent No. 2’s mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is distinctive and has been rightly registered.
10. The rival marks in question are ‘4MOTION’ and
‘TRANSFORMOTION’.
11. As per the Appellant’s documents10 ‘4MOTION’ is an intelligent
AWD system and is based on the modern MQB (modular transverse matrix)
platform. The document further states that ‘4MOTION’ is the name of a
smart four-wheel transfer system that actively monitors a car’s journey,
which is aimed at giving the user the best traction, as it controls and corrects
the amount of torque transfer, based on the road condition. The use of the
10
At page 125 of the documents filed by the Appellant.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 10 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
word ‘4MOTION’ is not only available in the brochures of the Appellant but
is also applied on its car, which is sold under the brand-name/model-name
Tiguan and the House mark of the Appellant is Volkswagen.
12. The Respondent No. 2, in contrast, issuing the mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ as a title of its promotion/advertisement campaign.
It is stated that ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is used as an advertisement
campaign to communicate transition of technology which is aimed at
making vehicles more convenient, enjoyable and fuel-efficient, while also
being environmentally conscious. It was submitted during arguments that,
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is used to convey to the consumers that, the
speedometers in its vehicles are moving from analogue to digital systems.
The Respondent No. 2 has also stated that its mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is derived from the English word transformation
and is a wordplay with the intention to signify the change of technology.
13. The Respondent No. 2 has contended that the word ‘MOTION’ is
common to the automobile industry and has placed on record details of other
marks registered or pending registration, which includes the said word11.
The Appellant has baldly disputed the said submission of the Respondent
No. 2, though, there is no dispute raised to the details of the third-party
trademarks relied upon by the Respondent No. 2 to show the use of the word
‘MOTION’ as a part of the said third-party marks. This Court even
otherwise, finds merit in the submission of the Respondent No. 2 that the
word ‘MOTION’ would be common to the automobile industry in which
both the parties operate and is, therefore, descriptive in its use in the rival
11
At page 5 of the additional documents filed by the Respondent No. 2.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 11 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
marks. Even on facts, both the parties have used the word ‘MOTION’ in
their rival marks in a generic manner to denote the (use of) technology for
their vehicles.
Therefore, the law settled by the Supreme Court in F. Hoffman-La
Roche& Co. Ltd (supra)12and J. R. Kapoor v. Micronix
India(supra)13relied upon by Respondent No. 2 would be apposite for
comparing the rival marks. Accordingly, the word ‘MOTION’ as it appears
in both the marks cannot be decisive. The rival marks would have to be
compared as a whole and only the uncommon part of the marks would have
to be considered for determining if there is any similarity, in the rival marks.
14. Keeping in view of the said principle of law, on a comparison of the
Appellant’s mark ‘4MOTION’ with Respondent No. 2’s whole mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’, this Court is satisfied that from a visual overlook,
there is no plausible chance of confusion between the two rival marks
because they are different from one another.
This Court has also perused the documents placed on record by the
Respondent No. 2 with respect to its advertisement campaign and the
stylised manner used by it for the impugned mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’/
in the advertisement campaign.
When compared, with the stylised manner in which ‘4MOTION’/
12
At paragraph no. 8
13
At paragraph no. 6
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 12 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
is applied by the Appellant
to its goods, also shows that there is no visual similarity.
15. With respect to phonetic similarity, the Appellant has contended that
‘4MOTION’ is pronounced as ‘FORMOTION’. This Court is of the opinion
that the finding returned in the impugned order, at paragraph 8, opining that
the Appellant’s pronunciation of its mark’4MOTION’ is not phonetically
similar to Respondent No. 2’s mark ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ is correct, as
the pronunciation of the word ‘TRANS’ in the Respondent’s mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’, sufficiently makes the Respondent No. 2’s mark
distinct.
Also, in the facts of this case, the reliance placed by the Respondent
No. 2 on Cadilla Laboratories Ltd. v. Dabur India Ltd.14(supra) is also
apposite as the prefix of the rival marks will become significant in view of
the suffix ‘MOTION’ being common to both the rival marks.
The Respondent No. 2’s mark starts with alphabets while the
Appellant’s mark starts with a numerical ‘4’, which is a stark difference
between the two marks. The prefix ‘TRANS’ in Respondent No. 2’s mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’, when compared with the prefix ‘4’ in the
Appellant’s mark ‘4MOTION’, leads to distinct pronunciation which in the
14
At paragraph no. 7.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 13 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
considered opinion of this Court, does not lead to any likelihood of
confusion in the said marks.
16. The Appellant has sought to invoke the dominant feature test to
contend that Respondent No. 2’s mark be dissected to opine that the
impugned mark absorbs the entire mark ‘4MOTION’. However, this Court
is unable to accept this submission as the impugned mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ commends to the mind of the Court as a single
word and there is no inclination to split up the said mark/word and read it as
‘TRANS’ and ‘FORMOTION’ separately, as suggested by the Appellant.
17. With respect to the submission of the Appellant that there is
conceptual/semantic similarity in the Appellant’s mark, this Court finds
merit in the submission of the Respondent No. 2that no such plea was raised
by the Appellant in the notice of opposition, before the Registrar. It is
precluded from raising such a plea before this Court.
Notwithstanding this conclusion, this Court even otherwise does not
find any merit in the said submission, as the concept of the Appellant’s
‘4MOTION’ is used in relation to its existing technology applied to the
vehicle, so as to denote a feature of its vehicle, Volkswagen Tiguan, whereas
Respondent No. 2 has used the expression ‘TRANSFORMOTION’ as a part
of an advertising campaign to convey a transition in its use of technology as
discussed above. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the submission of
semantic similarity by the Appellant.
In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned mark
‘TRANSFORMOTION’ brings the idea/thought of transformation to one’s
mind and the submission of the Respondent No. 2 that it is a wordplay of the
dictionary word transformation to convey to its consumer the transition of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 14 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
technology from analogue to digital, for its vehicles, appears reasonable.
The thought that, therefore, comes to the mind is transformation or
transition of the technology used by Respondent No. 2.
18. This Court, therefore, finds that the finding of Respondent No. 1 in
the impugned order that the impugned mark is distinctive and not
deceptively similar to the mark of the Appellant is correct. In view of this
finding, the submission of the Appellant that its mark is the ‘earlier
trademark’ is not relevant.
19. This Court also finds that the Appellant herein is Volkswagen AG,
and Respondent No. 2 herein is Maruti Suzuki India Limited; both
companies have independent, substantial goodwill in the Indian market and,
considering the class of products sold by the parties are cars, which are
purchased by consumers after due deliberations, this Court is persuaded to
hold that there is no material on record to conclude that the consumers
would be confused or misled to purchase the goods of the Respondent No. 2
under mistaken belief that the same actually belongs to the Appellant. The
Appellant has also failed to bring on record any evidence showing
confusion. It is also not disputed that the use of the impugned mark by
Respondent No. 2 for its advertisement campaign in 2016 predates the
Appellant’s use of its mark for its goods only in 2017. Thus, as a matter of
fact the customers were not even aware of the Appellant’s mark when the
Respondent No. 2 commenced use of the impugned mark. This ground of
alleged confusion raised by the Appellant is therefore, not based on actual
consumer confusion. Also, in view of the finding of this Court, that there is
no deceptive similarity in the marks, the plea of likelihood of confusion is
without any merits.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 15 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40
20. The Respondent No. 2 has filed a short note dated 17.11.2025
distinguishing the judgments relied upon by the Appellant. The judgments
relied upon by the Appellant are not applicable in view of the findings
returned by this Court on the issue of absence of deceptive similarity
between the two rival marks.
21. In its submissions, the Respondent No. 2 has raised the plea that the
appeal is time barred, however, this Court finds that the delay in filing the
appeal already stands condoned vide order dated 03.05.2024, which has
attained finality.
22. In addition, Respondent No. 2 has also raised a plea in its submissions
that the present appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act 1999,
is not maintainable. However, the said plea was not pressed upon during
arguments.
23. Accordingly, the present appeal is without any merit and the same is
dismissed.
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 12, 2026/hp/IB/msh
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MAHIMA
SHARMA C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2024 Page 16 of 16
Signing Date:12.03.2026
17:40