Whether the applicant's use of the trademark "TATA," even with evidence of use since 1981, is an honest concurrent user or an attempt to trespass on the petitioner's well-established mark, "THE HOUSE OF TATAS"?
Is the rejection of the petitioner's evidence based on a lack of pleading on the registered status of the "TATA" trademark, as well as the failure to consider a prior court order against respondent No. 2, a fair basis for dismissing the opposition to the trademark registration?
To be eligible for registration, a trademark must not be likely to deceive or cause confusion, and it must not be a colourable imitation of an existing brand. Evidence of repute and earlier use can be important elements in assessing whether or not a trademark registration should be permitted. Furthermore, when evaluating opposition to trademark registration, it is critical to evaluate the legitimacy of any concerns stated, even if they are not explicitly pled, and not to discard pertinent evidence without adequate justification.