Trade Mark Rights Grow With Business Expansion: Delhi High Court’s Key Observations in the JBR Decision

Recently, in an appeal filed by the appellant, Karan Rathore, the Delhi High Court overturned an order passed by the Trade Marks Registry (“Registry”) dismissing an opposition filed by the appellant against an application filed by the respondent, Shivam Rathore. The appellant is the registered owner of the mark JBR Device, which covers motor parts in Class 12. In July 2020, the appellant’s predecessor-in-interest formally authorized the respondent to use the appellant’s mark for selling goods on e-commerce websites. Subsequently, the appellant discovered that the respondent had filed the impugned application to register the word mark JBR, covering car covers, bike covers, and vehicle covers in Class 12. The appellant filed an opposition against the impugned application. The Registry, subsequently, passed an order dismissing the opposition.

The appellant had, in the appeal, argued that his mark was coined and adopted in the year 2000 by his predecessor-in-interest, and was validly assigned to the appellant in May 2023. The appellant further argued that the impugned mark prominently incorporates his mark, which has been in use long before the adoption of the impugned mark. The appellant argued that the Registry erroneously passed the order ruling that the rival goods are different. The respondent submitted that the appellant has the exclusive right to use his mark but cannot claim exclusivity over the term ‘JBR’. The respondent further argued that the rival goods are different, and submitted that if a proprietor deals with only one or some of the goods under a trade mark and has no bona fide intention to trade in or manufacture other goods falling under the same class, such registration needs to be rectified by confining it to the specific goods.

The court observed that it is a matter of record that the appellant’s mark has been in use since the year 2000 and further added that on a comparison of the rival marks, it can be clearly seen that the impugned mark incorporates the prominent feature of the appellant’s mark. Regarding the question of similarity between the rival goods, the court held that it is a well-established principle in law that an owner of a mark is always entitled to expand its goods and services, as a natural consequence in expansion of its business. Further, the court held that, when the rival goods (automobile motor parts v. car covers, bike covers, and vehicle covers) are perceived from commercial and business point of view, there could be confusion in the minds of the purchasing public that the rival goods stem from the same trade source.

Karan Rathore vs. Registrar Of Trade Marks & Anr. [C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 23/2024 & I.A. 9027/2024], pronounced on January 17, 2026

Read the judgement copy here.