Prior user’s rights prevail over deceptively similar marks registered for allied or cognate goods.

The Petitioner, a manufacturer of food products including spices and edible oils under the trademark "GOLDIEE," sought the rectification and removal of Respondent No. 1’s trademark "GOLDI (LABEL)" from the Register of Trade Marks

The Petitioner claimed prior use of "GOLDIEE" since 1980, supported by registrations dating back to 01.10.1980

The impugned marks were registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 29 (mustard oil) and Class 31 (oil cake for animals) with a claimed user date of 01.01.2000

During the proceedings, Respondent No. 3 was impleaded as the assignee of the impugned marks

Both Respondents remained ex-parte

The Petitioner alleged that the impugned marks were phonetically, visually, and structurally identical to its own, leading to a likelihood of confusion among common consumers

1. Whether the trademark "GOLDI" is deceptively similar to the Petitioner's prior registered mark "GOLDIEE"

2. Whether the goods under Class 29 and Class 31 are allied or cognate such that common trade channels and consumer bases would result in confusion

3. Whether the impugned registrations should be cancelled under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The court primarily applied Sections 9(2)(a), 11(1)(a) and (b), 47, and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 regarding the absolute and relative grounds for refusal and the power to rectify the register

It relied on the precedent set in Fybros Electric (P) Ltd. v. Vasu Dev Gupta, which clarifies that the coverage of a trademark is determined by its registration certificate and precludes others from using deceptively similar marks for similar goods

It further applied the "allied and cognate goods" test from FDC Limited v. Docsuggest Healthcare Services Pvt. Ltd., which establishes that similarity is not strictly limited to classification but depends on trade connection, intended purpose, and common consumers

The court found the Petitioner to be the prior adopter, user, and registrant (1980) compared to the Respondent (2000)

Upon comparison, the court held that "GOLDI" and "GOLDIEE" are phonetically, visually, and structurally nearly identical, noting that the removal of the letters "EE" was an insufficient distinction and that the Hindi versions were nearly indistinguishable

The court determined that the goods—edible oil and animal oil cake—are allied and cognate because they share common distribution channels, retail outlets, and consumer bases

It reasoned that an unwary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection would likely associate the Respondent's products with the Petitioner’s established reputation and "GOLDIEE" brand

In the absence of a bona fide explanation for adoption by the Respondents, the court concluded the adoption was dishonest

The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the entry for "GOLDI (LABEL)" under registration no. 945240 in Class 29 and registration no. 2023762 in Class 31

The Registrar was ordered to comply within six weeks

No orders were made as to costs