Further observing that the manner in which the defendant was using its mark “VKG” was identical to that in which the plaintiff was using its mark “VKC”, it was held that use of the subject mark by the plaintiff in conjunction with another mark and use by the defendant of its mark with the mark “PU” will also not alleviate the deception and confusion otherwise likely.
The Court in Veekesy Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Deepak Gupta was also of the view that merely because the name of the father of the defendant is V.K. Gupta, the adoption of the mark “VKG” cannot be said to be bona fide.
The defendant was hence restrained from using the mark “VKG” or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark in relation to footwear.