In the case at hand, we analyze a dispute involving the defense of honest and concurrent user in a trademark rectification petition. The case revolves around the use of the trademark "NATRAJ" with the Natraj device by two parties, the appellant and the respondent.

Background:
The case originated from a ruling by the Hon'ble Single Judge in 1984, which denied the appellant's request to cancel Trade Mark No. 324345 held by the respondent. The appellant, a manufacturer of various stationary products, claimed to have been operating under the trademark "NATRAJ" with the Natraj device since 1957. On the other hand, the respondent contended that they had been using the same trademark in connection with geometrical instruments since 1974, and their mark had been registered in 1981.

Honest and Concurrent Use:
The crux of this case lies in the concept of honest and concurrent use of a trademark. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi examined the case and found that neither the appellants nor the respondent used the phrase "Natraj" with the Natraj device exclusively in relation to stationary items. This observation was crucial in granting the respondent the benefit of an honest and concurrent user.

The court's reasoning was that multiple other users had registered similar trademarks. This indicated that the respondent genuinely believed they were using the mark for items distinct from those for which the appellants had already registered the trademark. In other words, the respondent's use of the mark for mathematical instruments was in good faith, believing it did not infringe upon the appellant's registered mark.

Abandonment of Objection:
One critical aspect that worked against the appellants in this case was their failure to provide evidence to support their notice of opposition against the respondent's registration. Despite contesting the respondent's application, the appellants did not produce any substantial proof when given multiple opportunities to do so. Consequently, their objection was abandoned.

The appellants did not take the recourse of filing a review under Section 97(C) or an appeal under Section 109(2) against the abandoned ruling. This omission played a significant role in the dismissal of their appeal.

The Concluding Note:
In trademark disputes, the principle of honest and concurrent use is vital, allowing parties to coexist peacefully when they genuinely use similar marks without infringing on each other's rights. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of providing substantial evidence in trademark objections and the consequences of failing to pursue legal avenues available for appeal or review.

The Hon'ble Division Bench's decision in favor of the respondent underscores the need for a well-documented and legally sound defense in trademark disputes. In this instance, the appellant's failure to substantiate their claims and appeal the abandoned ruling ultimately led to the dismissal of their case, reaffirming the principle of honest and concurrent use in trademark law.

Case Title: Hindustan Pencils Private Limited Vs Universal Trading Company
Date of Judgement:31/10/2000
Case No. FAO(OS). 6 of 1985
Neutral Citation No:N.A.
Name of Hon'ble Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Arun Kumar and A.K. Sikri, JJ

Disclaimer:
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539