The case involves a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner, Fybros Electric Private Limited, is the registered proprietor of the mark "FYBROS" and "F" logo. The petitioner claims to have used the mark since 2008 in relation to various electrical goods.

The respondent, Hira Lal Jain and others, obtained registration for the mark "NEBROS" in Class 9 for wire and cables, which is claimed to be deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark. The petitioner seeks the removal of the respondent's mark from the register and rectification of the register accordingly. The main legal issue is whether the respondent's mark is liable to be removed based on the likelihood of confusion with the petitioner's mark.

Procedural History:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Notice was issued to the respondents, and while Respondent 2 accepted the notice, Respondent 1 did not respond. The right of Respondent 1 to file a reply was closed, and the matter proceeded ex-parte. The court heard the petitioner's counsel and proceeded to decide the case based on the submissions made and the material on record.

Issues Presented:
The court addressed the following legal issues in its decision:

• Whether the respondent's mark "NEBROS" is deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark "FYBROS" and likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public?
• Whether the respondent's mark is entitled to registration considering the similarity with the petitioner's mark and the identical goods they are registered for?

Rule of Law:
The relevant legal principles and rules applicable to the case include:
Trade Marks Act, 1999:
Section 10(1) (Requirements for registration), Section 11(1) (Relative grounds for refusal of registration), Section 12 (Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc.), Section 57 (Rectification of register), and Section 57(2) (Grounds for removal of a registered trade mark).

Precedents:
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta MANU/SC/0256/1962; K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. and Ors. MANU/SC/0303/1969; Fybros Electric Pvt. Ltd. v. Mukesh Singh and Ors. MANU/DE/3348/2023; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. MANU/SC/0115/1959.

Analysis and Reasoning:
The court found that the petitioner's mark "FYBROS" and the respondent's mark "NEBROS" were phonetically similar and registered for identical goods in Class 9. The court relied on the Pianotist test and the Supreme Court's precedents to determine phonetic similarity and the likelihood of confusion. The court considered the nature of customers and surrounding circumstances to assess the similarity between the marks. The court also noted that the petitioner had priority of registration and use over the respondent. The court's analysis was based on the petitioner's earlier case, where similar issues were addressed.

Holding and Decision:
The court held that the respondent's mark "NEBROS" was liable to be removed from the register under Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court reasoned that the respondent's mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark "FYBROS," and there was a likelihood of confusion among the public.

In reaching its decision, the court relied on the Pianotist test, which emphasizes the importance of considering the overall impression created by the marks, including their visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities. The court found that the marks "FYBROS" and "NEBROS" were phonetically similar, with only a slight difference in the initial letters. The common suffix "-BROS" contributed to the similarity between the marks.

Moreover, the court considered the nature of the goods in question, which were identical in both cases. The court opined that electrical goods, such as wires and cables, are ordinary consumer goods, and the likelihood of confusion among the general public was high due to the similarity between the marks.

The court also noted that the petitioner had established prior use and registration of its mark "FYBROS" since 2008. The respondent failed to demonstrate any honest concurrent use or other valid grounds to justify the registration of its mark. As a result, the court held that the respondent's mark was liable to be removed from the register.

In conclusion, the court ordered the removal of the respondent's mark "NEBROS" from the register and directed the rectification of the register accordingly. The court affirmed the petitioner's rights as the registered proprietor of the mark "FYBROS" and granted the requested relief.