Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Order Date: 28-09-2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner – RPG Enterprises Limited (owner of the well‑known "RPG" trademark); Respondents – Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai, and RPG Marble Pvt Ltd together with its directors Giriraj Ladha, Rajkumar Ladha, Pawan Kumar Gupta, Omprakash Mantry.
  • Petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking cancellation of Registration No. 1474334 ("RPG Marble Pvt. Ltd.") in Class 42, alleging that the mark is deceptively similar to the petitioner’s long‑used "RPG" mark, causes dilution, and was entered in the wrong class (goods should fall under Class 19).
  • Petitioner argued that "RPG" is a well‑known mark (recognised in Trade Marks Journal No. 2106 dated 29‑05‑2023) with extensive use since 1979, and that the respondents’ mark was adopted fraudulently, without bona‑fide justification, and creates confusion.
  • Respondents contended that the "RPG" in their mark derives from the initials of the directors’ names, that they have used the mark since 07‑04‑2000, that the mark is distinct (stylised "R" with blue‑beige colours), and that their goods (marble, granite, stones) fall under Class 42, not overlapping with petitioner’s classes (5, 9, 12, 16, 30).
  • The court framed eight issues, notably whether the registration is liable to be rectified, whether the respondents adopted the mark fraudulently, whether the petitioner’s well‑known status is retrospective, and whether the petition is barred by waiver, delay, laches and acquiescence under Section 33.
  • Evidence: Petitioner’s authorized signatory Mr. R. Natarajan examined (Ex.P1‑P18); respondents’ documents (Ex.R1‑R3). The court noted contradictions in the petitioner’s testimony regarding a 2002 legal notice and the annual report of 2016‑17, indicating prior knowledge of the respondents’ use.
  • The court applied the Supreme Court’s principles on acquiescence (Union of India v. N. Murugesan, 2022) and held that the petitioner’s fifteen‑year inaction after acquiring knowledge in 2002 constitutes acquiescence, thereby invoking Section 33.

Final Outcome

  • The court held that the rectification petition is barred by the doctrine of acquiescence, delay and laches; consequently, the petition is dismissed.
  • The related miscellaneous application is also closed.
  • No costs are awarded to either party.

Topics: Trademark Rectification, Acquiescence Doctrine, Well‑Known Mark