The petitioner, the proprietor of the trademark "NIZAM’S" (Registration No. 2164405 in Class-43), has been using the mark continuously and extensively in the food and hospitality industry for over four decades. The trademark has become synonymous with the petitioner’s services and products, and has developed strong recognition in the market. The petitioner argued that the trademark "ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM", registered by Respondent No. 1, was deceptively similar and phonetically identical to "NIZAM’S", leading to the potential for confusion among consumers.

In the present case, the petitioner’s legal counsel argued that the trademark "NIZAM’S" has become a "house mark" for the petitioner’s services, being prominently used on product packaging and across various goods and services in the hospitality sector. The petitioner also provided evidence in the form of a menu card from Respondent No. 1, which revealed that the latter had ceased using the trademark "ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM" and started operating under the name "DAAWAT-E-NIZAM", a name that was not registered.

While the respondent’s counsel initially contested the petition, stating that the trademark "ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM" had been registered in error and was no longer in use, the respondent later provided an undertaking in court. They expressed their intention to operate their business under the name "DAAWAT-E-NIZAMUDDIN" or "ANDAAZ-E-NIZAMUDDIN". They assured the court that the name change would be implemented across all business operations, including the partnership firm and restaurant, within a period of four weeks.

Taking into account the respondent’s admission that the trademark "ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM" was no longer in use and that it was intended to be replaced, the court allowed the petition in favor of the petitioner. The court also noted that, under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a registered trademark could be removed from the register if it had not been in use.

The court directed the Registrar of Trademarks (Respondent No. 2) to remove the registered trademark "ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM" from the registry, citing the respondent’s abandonment of the mark. The Registrar was ordered to complete the rectification within four weeks from the date of the ruling. Furthermore, the court directed the communication of this order to the Registrar of Trademarks to ensure prompt compliance.

This judgment highlights the importance of protecting established trademarks against deceptive similarities, especially when the conflicting mark is likely to confuse or deceive consumers. It reiterates the protection granted to well-known brands that have developed a distinct identity over decades.

The ruling is also a reminder to businesses to ensure that any trademarks they register, or intend to use, are unique and do not infringe upon existing trademarks. In cases of non-use of a registered trademark, the law provides mechanisms, such as the removal of the mark from the register, to prevent dormant trademarks from causing market confusion.

The court's intervention in this case has provided clarity in protecting the rights of businesses that have invested heavily in building brand identity over the years. The petitioner’s trademark "NIZAM’S" remains secure, and the respondent’s shift to a new business name ensures that no confusion will arise in the marketplace, safeguarding both parties' interests. The case concludes with the cancellation of the "ANDAAZ-E-NIZAAM" trademark, a win for trademark protection and clarity in the Indian legal system.