TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Delhi High Court Orders Cancellation of 'PONTA' Trademark Registrations, Reinforces Protection of Prior Registered Marks.
Case Details
Case: Panasonic Holdings Corporation & Anr. v. Siddharth Vij & Anr.
Case Numbers: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 171/2025 and C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 172/2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Decision Date: June 5, 2026
In a significant trademark rectification ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the removal of the trademarks 'PONTA' and its associated device mark from the Register of Trade Marks, holding that they are deceptively similar to Panasonic's long-standing and well-established 'PENTA' trademark used for electrical products. The judgment underscores the importance of prior trademark rights, honest adoption, and the Registrar's duty to carefully examine applications that conflict with existing registered marks.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while deciding two connected rectification petitions filed by Panasonic Holdings Corporation and its Indian affiliate, held that the registration of the impugned marks was granted without sufficient cause and could not be permitted to remain on the Trade Marks Register. The Court consequently directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove both the word mark 'PONTA' and the corresponding device mark registered in favour of Siddharth Vij.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute revolved around Panasonic's trademark 'PENTA', a brand extensively used in relation to electrical switches, sockets, regulators, plugs and other electrical accessories falling under Class 9.
Panasonic traced its rights in the mark to registrations dating back to September 1989. The company informed the Court that it acquired the business and goodwill associated with the 'PENTA' brand as part of its acquisition of the Shah Family Group's electrical business in 2007. Since then, the mark has been continuously used across India and has become one of the company's prominent brands in the electrical accessories segment.
The petitioners produced extensive documentary evidence before the Court, including trademark registrations, invoices, catalogues, brochures, promotional material and sales figures spanning several years. According to the evidence placed on record, turnover generated from products sold under the 'PENTA' and 'PENTA Modular' brands had grown substantially, running into hundreds of crores of rupees annually.
Panasonic argued that the extensive use, promotion and commercial success of the mark had generated substantial goodwill and consumer recognition throughout India.
Registration of the 'PONTA' Marks
The respondent, Siddharth Vij, applied for registration of the word mark 'PONTA' on March 30, 2019, on a 'proposed to be used' basis in Class 9 for goods including electrical sockets, plugs, switches and multi-plugs. A corresponding device mark was also filed and subsequently registered.
During examination of the application, the Trade Marks Registry issued an Examination Report raising objections under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Significantly, the Registry cited Panasonic's earlier 'PENTA' registrations as conflicting marks.
In response, the applicant merely asserted that 'PONTA' and 'PENTA' were different marks and requested waiver of the objection. No detailed explanation regarding the adoption of the mark, its origin, or any distinguishing features was furnished before the Registry.
Despite the objection and the absence of substantive justification, the application proceeded to registration in February 2021.
Aggrieved by the registrations, Panasonic approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification and cancellation under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
Panasonic's Case
Panasonic contended that it was the undisputed prior adopter, user and registered proprietor of the trademark 'PENTA' in relation to identical goods.
The company argued that the respondent's mark 'PONTA' was deceptively similar to 'PENTA' from visual, structural and phonetic perspectives. According to Panasonic, the only difference between the two marks was the substitution of the letter 'E' with the letter 'O', which was insufficient to distinguish the marks in the marketplace.
It was further argued that both parties were dealing in identical electrical products sold through the same trade channels and targeting the same class of consumers. Consequently, there existed a significant likelihood of confusion and deception.
Panasonic also alleged dishonest adoption. It submitted that by the time the respondent applied for registration in 2019, the 'PENTA' mark had already acquired substantial reputation and goodwill in the market. The respondent therefore could not plausibly claim ignorance of Panasonic's rights.
The petitioners emphasised that the respondent's mark had been filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis and that the Trade Marks Registry itself had identified 'PENTA' as a conflicting mark during examination.
Respondent's Defence
The respondent resisted the petitions by claiming that 'PONTA' had been honestly adopted and was inspired by the revered Sikh shrine Gurudwara Shri Paonta Sahib.
According to the respondent, he and his family were devout followers of the Sikh faith, and the trademark was chosen as a sincere expression of religious reverence rather than any attempt to imitate Panasonic's brand.
The respondent further argued that the marks were visually and phonetically distinct and that no consumer confusion was likely to arise. It was also submitted that substantial business had been built under the 'PONTA' mark since its adoption and that the respondent had independently acquired market recognition.
Additionally, the respondent sought to justify the adoption of the mark by referring to various meanings allegedly associated with the word 'PONTA' in different languages and jurisdictions.
Court Rejects the Explanation for Adoption
The Court found the respondent's explanation entirely unconvincing.
Justice Gedela observed that the alleged inspiration from Paonta Sahib had never been disclosed before the Trade Marks Registry during examination of the application. The explanation surfaced only during the rectification proceedings before the Court.
The Court held that if the explanation were genuine, there was no reason for it not to have been disclosed when responding to the Examination Report that specifically cited Panasonic's prior registrations.
The Court therefore viewed the explanation as a convenient afterthought rather than a genuine account of the mark's adoption.
The Court was equally critical of the respondent's reliance on alleged meanings of the word 'PONTA' in various foreign languages. It noted that much of the material appeared to have been generated through artificial intelligence tools and was unsupported by independent evidence or authentication.
Consequently, the Court declined to place any reliance on such material.
Deceptive Similarity Between 'PENTA' and 'PONTA'
A central aspect of the judgment concerned the comparison of the rival marks.
Upon examining the marks side by side, the Court concluded that the similarity between them was immediately apparent.
According to the Court, merely replacing the letter 'E' in 'PENTA' with the letter 'O' in 'PONTA' did not create any meaningful distinction. The marks retained a highly similar visual structure and overall commercial impression.
The Court also examined the respondent's device mark and observed that the stylisation employed in the letter 'O' created an appearance resembling the letter 'E'. This further diminished any possibility of differentiation.
Justice Gedela held that the marks were visually, structurally and conceptually similar and, at the very least, deceptively similar.
The Court observed that an ordinary consumer with imperfect recollection was likely to associate the respondent's products with Panasonic's established 'PENTA' brand.
Triple Identity Test Satisfied
The Court found that the classic 'triple identity' factors were fully satisfied.
- First, the competing marks were deceptively similar.
- Second, the goods sold by both parties were identical, consisting of electrical accessories falling within Class 9.
- Third, the products were marketed through identical trade channels, retailers, distributors and consumer segments.
The Court observed that the relevant consumers would include electricians, contractors and members of the general public who are unlikely to conduct detailed inquiries into the source of the goods.
In such circumstances, the likelihood of confusion and mistaken association was particularly high.
Honest Concurrent Use Defence Rejected
The respondent sought protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, which permits registration in certain cases of honest concurrent use.
The Court rejected the defence.
Justice Gedela noted that the respondent's application had been filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis and that Panasonic's prior 'PENTA' marks had been specifically cited during examination.
Despite being aware of the existing registrations, the respondent neither provided a convincing explanation for adoption nor established circumstances demonstrating honesty or concurrent use.
The Court therefore concluded that the statutory requirements for invoking Section 12 were not satisfied.
Relief Granted Under Section 57
Although Panasonic had invoked both Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, the Court held that Section 57 was the more appropriate provision in the circumstances.
The Court observed that Section 57 empowers the High Court to remove a trademark from the Register where an entry has been made without sufficient cause or where it wrongly remains on the Register.
Applying this provision, Justice Gedela held that the registrations of 'PONTA' and the associated device mark could not have been granted in light of Panasonic's earlier rights and the absence of any credible justification for adoption.
The Court therefore directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove both registrations from the Register within four weeks.
Significance of the Decision
The judgment reinforces several important principles of Indian trademark law.
First, it reiterates that prior registered rights carry significant weight in trademark disputes, particularly where identical goods are involved.
Second, it highlights that explanations for adoption must be genuine, consistent and disclosed at the earliest opportunity. Courts are unlikely to accept post facto justifications that were never presented before the Trade Marks Registry.
Third, the decision demonstrates that minor alterations to a registered trademark; such as changing a single letter will not necessarily avoid a finding of deceptive similarity, especially where the overall impression of the mark remains substantially the same.
Finally, the ruling serves as a reminder that the Trade Marks Registry's examination process must be conducted with careful regard to earlier registrations, and registrations granted despite clear conflicts remain vulnerable to rectification proceedings.
***