Decided on: 17th February, 2026
Coram: Arif S. Doctor, J.
Citation: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 857 Of 2022
Introduction
In a decision that resonates strongly with both businesses and legal practitioners, the Bombay High Court has reaffirmed a simple but powerful principle: a trademark is not merely a registration, it is a reputation earned over time, and the law will not allow others to appropriate it. In this judgment the Court was confronted with a classic case of brand imitation in the real estate sector, raising fundamental questions about prior use, trans-border reputation, and the limits of statutory protection. The judgment ultimately reinforces that intellectual property law exists not just to regulate markets, but to preserve commercial honesty and consumer trust.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Century 21 Real Estate LLC, is a well-known international real estate franchising company. It has been using the marks “CENTURY 21” since the 1970s and has built a strong reputation over time. The brand is widely recognised across different countries.
In India as well, the petitioner had trademark registrations dating back to 1989. It later expanded its presence through franchise arrangements, particularly around 2007. Apart from this, it also had domain names and an online presence connected to its brand, which made it accessible to Indian consumers.
The respondent, Century 21 Town Planners Pvt. Ltd., is also in the real estate business. Around 2010, it obtained trademark registrations for the mark “C21” and also included “CENTURY 21” in its company name.
The petitioner approached the Bombay High Court and filed rectification petitions, seeking removal of the respondent’s trademark registration for the “C21” trademarks. The main argument was that the respondent had adopted the mark dishonestly in order to ride on coat tails of the petitioner’s goodwill and reputation.
The respondent, however, claimed that it had been using the mark since 2007 and therefore had better rights in India. It also argued that the petitioner did not have sufficient commercial presence in India at that time, and that global reputation alone should not be enough to claim protection within India.
Analysis
The Court was not convinced by the respondent’s arguments. One of the first things the Court considered was whether the adoption of the Impugned Mark by the respondent was genuine. The Court noted that the respondent could not give any clear or convincing reason for choosing the mark “C21”. This became even more questionable because the respondent had also used “CENTURY 21” in its company name. Since both parties were operating in the same line of business, it did not appear to be a coincidence.
The Court also focused on the idea of dishonest adoption. It was made clear that if a mark is adopted in a way that suggests an intention to take advantage of a prior trademark’s reputation, such adoption cannot be protected, even if the subsequent mark is later registered.
On the issue of prior use, the Court carefully went through the documents produced by the respondent. Although the respondent claimed use from 2007, the documents actually showed use only from around 2010. Because of this, the Court did not accept the claim of prior use.
In comparison, the petitioner was able to show long-standing use of the mark. It had evidence of registrations, franchise operations in India, advertisements, and online presence. All of this helped in showing that the petitioner had already built recognition in India before the respondent started using the mark.
Another important point discussed by the Court was the meaning of “use” under trademark law. The Court clarified that use does not only mean selling goods physically. It can also include maintaining websites, advertising services, and offering services to consumers. This interpretation reflects how businesses function today, where online presence plays a major role.
The Court also accepted that the petitioner’s reputation had extended to India. It was not a case where the brand was only known abroad without any connection to India. There was enough material to show that people in India were aware of it.
As far as the marks were concerned, the Court did not accept the argument that “C21” is different from “CENTURY 21”. It observed that “C21” is clearly an abbreviation of Century 21, and since both parties were offering similar services, there was a strong possibility of confusion among consumers.
The Court also repeated an important principle that registration does not create ownership on its own. It only recognises rights that already exist.
Conclusion
The Court allowed the petitions and directed that the respondent’s trademarks be removed from the register. It held that the respondent’s adoption of the Impugned Mark was dishonest and therefore could not be protected.
This judgment reinforces a few key ideas. First, prior user rights are still very important in trademark law. Second, registration alone cannot protect a mark if it has been adopted in bad faith. And third, the law is adapting to modern business practices by recognising things like online presence and franchise operations as valid forms of use.
Overall, the decision sends a clear message that trying to benefit from someone else’s established brand, even in a slightly altered form, will not be accepted by the courts.