The present case revolves around a dispute concerning trademark registration in the beauty and personal care industry. The petitioner, Goodai Global Inc., a South Korean company, filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the removal of the registered device mark obtained by Respondent No. 1, Shahnawaz Siddiqu. The core issue before the court was whether the respondent’s registration of the impugned mark 
was obtained in bad faith and amounted to trademark squatting, thereby warranting cancellation under Indian trademark law.
Goodai Global Inc. is a well-established manufacturer of Korean beauty and personal care products under the brand name Beauty of Joseon/ 
. The brand was launched in 2010 and has gained international recognition for its high-quality skincare products inspired by traditional Korean beauty practices. The company operates in 54 countries and has an official website, https://beautyofjoseon.com/, registered in 2017, which allows global consumers, including those in India, to access and purchase its products. Given the brand’s international popularity, Beauty of Joseon has been extensively covered in global beauty magazines and media.
The dispute arose in August 2022, when Goodai Global Inc. officially entered the Indian market by exporting its skincare products. The company applied for international trademark protection, but on December 28, 2023, the Indian Trade Marks Registry issued a provisional refusal on the grounds of non-distinctiveness. While preparing its response to this refusal, the petitioner discovered that the respondent, Shahnawaz Siddiqu, had registered an almost identical device mark under application no. 5635163 in Class 3 on October 3, 2022, on a proposed-to-be-used basis. Further investigation revealed that the respondent had also applied for the registration of Beauty of Joseon as a word mark under Application No. 6236043. In response, Goodai Global Inc. filed an opposition to this application on March 7, 2024, followed by the present rectification petition for cancellation of the respondent’s device mark.
Despite being duly served notice on July 4, 2024, the respondent failed to file a reply or appear in the proceedings. Consequently, on October 8, 2024, the Joint Registrar closed the respondent’s right to file a reply, and on October 21, 2024, the respondent was proceeded against ex-parte. The court also granted an interim injunction in favour of the petitioner.
The petitioner argued that the impugned registration was fraudulent and obtained in bad faith. Relying on legal precedents, including Kia Wang vs Registrar of Trademarks and BPI Sports LLC vs Saurabh Gulati, the petitioner’s counsel asserted that the respondent had no legitimate reason to register a Korean brand name in Hangeul (Korean script), particularly when the term Joseon has no connection to any person or place in India. The petitioner contended that the registration was a deliberate attempt to misappropriate its well-established brand and block its entry into the Indian market.
The court conducted a side-by-side comparison of the petitioner’s device mark and the respondent’s registered device mark, concluding that they were nearly identical. The petitioner’s mark consists of black Hangeul characters spelling Joseon and Mi Nyeo, arranged in two lines at the centre, with a red square seal encapsulating the white Hangeul text Cracle In. The similarity between the two marks, combined with the fact that both were registered for identical goods in Class 3 (beauty and personal care products), created a high likelihood of confusion among consumers. Given that the petitioner had been using the mark since 2010 and had acquired significant global goodwill, the court ruled that the respondent’s mark was deceptively similar and likely to mislead the public.
The court also examined the concept of bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act. It held that the respondent’s actions constituted trademark squatting—a practice where an entity registers a well-known foreign trademark without any genuine intent to use it, solely to prevent the rightful owner from entering the market or to extract monetary benefits. The respondent’s failure to contest the petition further reinforced the inference of bad faith. The court found that the respondent had registered the mark purely to trade upon the established goodwill of Goodai Global Inc. and to mislead consumers into believing an association between the two brands.
In arriving at its decision, the court relied on the Kia Wang case, where the registration of the trademark Rockpapa was cancelled because it was identical to a globally recognised mark. Similarly, in BPI Sports LLC vs Saurabh Gulati, the Delhi High Court ruled that registering a trademark deceptively similar to a well-known foreign mark without any legitimate basis constituted bad faith and warranted cancellation. Applying the same reasoning, the court, in this case, concluded that the respondent’s registration was unlawful and should be removed from the Register of Trade Marks.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel the respondent’s registered trademark (No. 5635163 in Class 3). The court also instructed the Registry to send a copy of the order to the Trade Marks Office for compliance.
This judgment reaffirms the legal position that trademark squatting, and bad faith registrations will not be tolerated under Indian law. It underscores the importance of protecting well-established global brands from unauthorised appropriation and provides a strong precedent for international companies seeking to safeguard their trademarks in India. The case highlights how Indian courts are actively preventing trademark misuse and ensuring that the intellectual property rights of genuine brand owners are upheld. By taking decisive action against the respondent’s deceptive registration, the court has reinforced the principle that trademarks must be registered with bona fide intent and not as a tool for unfair commercial advantage.
