Bombay High Court Cancels “Tractorjunction” Trademark, Finds Registration Obtained In Bad Faith

The court observed, “The Petition proceeds entirely on the basis that Respondent No. 1 has acted in bad faith in obtaining the impugned registration and sets out the necessary details and averments in that regard. Respondent No. 1, though served, has chosen not to appear to defend the Petition, nor has Respondent No. 1 denied the allegations including those of bad faith contained in the Petition. Thus, the averments in the Petition remain uncontroverted, and in my view, this silence on the part of Respondent No. 1 itself speaks volumes.”

Rajat Kumar filed the petition against Shivankar Gupta and the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking the cancellation of the “TRACTORJUNCTION” trademark registration in Class 35.

Kumar contended that the mark was an entry wrongly remaining on the register because he was the prior adopter and continuous user since at least 2016, whereas Gupta's 2018 application was a dishonest attempt to usurp his established rights.

He also claimed that the registration was obtained in bad faith through a fraudulent affidavit of user, thereby playing a fraud upon the Registry to secure a mark the respondent had never actually used

Rajat Kumar told the court that he had adopted the “TRACTORJUNCTION” mark and logo in 2014 and had used it continuously since at least 2016 for services.

Addressing these statements, the Court held that although the Respondent did not appear in the current proceedings, his previous filings before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) claimed usage since 2011 through an entity called Shreeji Motors.

However, the Bench remarked that there was no material provided to support this 2011 claim, nor any evidence of an assignment of rights from Shreeji Motors to the Respondent.

The court noted that an investigation report had revealed that the Respondent had never actually used the mark, suggesting the affidavit of user filed before the registry was fraudulent.

“Thus, the Petitioner having established prior use, it is to my mind clear that the impugned registration was obtained in bad faith and only to attempt to usurp the rights of the Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 has clearly filed a false affidavit before the Trade Marks Registry and obtained registration fraudulently. The impugned registration is therefore in violation of Section 11(10) and Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act,” the court held.

Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the cancellation of the “TRACTORJUNCTION” trademark from the Register.

For Rajat Kumar: Advocate Yakshay Chheda i/b SSB Legal & Advisory