The Court allowed Air India’s rectification petition and ordered removal/cancellation of the respondent’s registered mark “vistarraah” from the Trade Marks Register.
Air India holds multiple registrations for “VISTARA®” across classes, including Class 39 (transport services) and Class 21 (household utensils), and uses the mark extensively for full-service and low-cost airline services, cargo, in-flight and lounge services, and branded goods such as clothing, carpets, games and utensils.
Respondent No.1 secured registration for “vistarraah” in Class 31 and also attempted to register the same device mark in Classes 29, 30, 35 and 39. These additional applications were withdrawn, refused or deemed abandoned when opposed or examined, including after Air India’s cease-and-desist notice against a Class 39 application.
Air India filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking removal/cancellation/rectification of the respondent’s registered trademark “vistarraah” in Class 31. It contended that “vistarraah” is phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to its well-known mark and that its registration violates Sections 9(2)(a), 11(2)(a), 11(3) and 11(10) of the Act.
It argued that as a “person aggrieved” under Section 57, it could seek rectification because goods in Class 31 are allied/cognate to its food and hospitality-related services (e.g. airline meals, food served in lounges), and that allowing such use would dilute its well-known mark and mislead consumers into assuming a trade connection.
The Bench comprising Justice Arif S. Doctor noted Respondent No.1’s non-responsiveness throughout the proceedings, the pattern of multiple filings and withdrawals, and the lack of any evidence of bona fide adoption or honest concurrent use.
The Court held that Air India is the prior adopter and registered proprietor of “VISTARA®” since 2014, and that the Delhi High Court’s declaration of “VISTARA®” as a well-known mark, coupled with its inclusion in the Registrar’s list, attracts special protection under Section 11(10) across all classes.
The Court found that “vistarraah” is phonetically identical and visually/structurally similar to “VISTARA®”. It noted that the stylisation of the respondent’s mark does not change the overall commercial impression, especially for the “average consumer with imperfect recollection,” making confusion likely.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and ordered removal/cancellation/rectification of the impugned mark. It made no order as to costs.
Cases relied on:
1. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., 1959 SCC OnLine SC 11
2. Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Scotch Whisky Association, (2008) 10 SCC 723
3. Ciba Ltd. v. M. Ramalingam, 1957 SCC OnLine Bom 45
Appearances:
Ms. Geetanjali Vishwanathan a/w Drumi Nishar i/b Mayank Samuel, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh a/w Mr. Ashutosh Mishra and Ms. Vaidehi Pradeep for Respondent No. 2.
