APPROACH OF THE COURT

The TM Registrar in this instance cited the "first user rule," a theory. The Trade Mark Act's
Section 34 addresses the "first user" rule. It claims that even registering a mark, the owner
cannot stop a third party from using a mark that is identical to or confusingly similar to his
mark prior to the registration date. The party who first starts using the mark will be granted
the right to use it, even if the mark is later registered by another party. Since Kerala RTC was
the first to use the trademark (in 1965), it was given permission to do so. To demonstrate its
use of the acronym and its mark beginning in 1965, Kerala RTC was able to present
photographic evidence of vintage buses, bus terminals, pages from the memoirs of former
transport ministers, and related records of their transportation services.

Ironically, a scene from the 1969 Malayalam film "Kannur Deluxe," which has been the
focus of numerous headlines alleging that a movie helped Kerala win this case, was
submitted. In the scene, a Kerala SRTC bus was observed en route between the cities of
Kannur and Thiruvananthapuram. And, as was already said, Karnataka became a subsequent
user of this acronym/mark in 1973, starting roughly ten years after it was first used.

The significance of the idea of secondary meaning must be taken into account in addition to
the rationale already mentioned. Even if the abbreviation "KSRTC" may not stand out much,
it's crucial to note that through time it has developed a secondary meaning inside the states.
The frequency and duration of use have both been examined, and it is likely that the
abbreviation KSRTC stands for a variety of meanings. The Kerala SRTC, commonly known
as "Aanavandi," received preference over the Karnataka SRTC on this particular occasion.
The acronyms/marks may be understood to have a secondary meaning for a particular
condition, as demonstrated in this example.

If concurrent registration is not permitted by Section 12, it must be determined if Karnataka's

use of the KSRTC mark constitutes infringement. The only applicable provision is Section
29(5) of the Act, which prohibits the use of a registered mark as a trade name for "services in
respect of which the trademark is registered" in the absence of a likelihood of confusion and
because the services are identical. These conditions are met by Karnataka's use of the KSRTC
trademark. A registered mark, however, is not infringed upon in accordance with Section
30(2)(a) of the Act where it is utilised to indicate, among other things, the character, intended
use, and place of origin of the services in question. Given that Karnataka's use of this mark
arguably represents the intended application (transportation services), nature (by road), and
place of origin (Karnataka) of the services it offers, the defence of descriptive fair use may
also apply in this situation. In such a scenario, it might be proven that, despite Kerala having
registered the mark, Karnataka's use of the KSRTC brand does not violate trademark law.

The Trade Marks Act of 1999 states that there are no limitations on registering an acronym as
a trademark. The chances of registering that trademark would appear to be reasonable even
though using any abbreviation, like in this case, has acquired a secondary meaning that may
be significant to the state in any way, such as historical significance or immense reputation or
goodwill.

The registration of such an acronym would, however, result in related legal complications
concerning someone who also uses that specific acronym or abbreviation, as was seen in the
KSRTC case.

The Bombay High Court detailed the considerations to be taken into account for evaluating
honest concurrent usage in the case of Kores (India) Limited v. Khoday Eshwarsa and Son in
the context of the pari materia provision of the former Trade Mark Act. These were the
following elements:

"(1) The truthfulness of the concurrent use, (2) The amount of concurrent use demonstrated
by the petitioners taking into account the duration, area, volume, and type of trade, as well as
the goods in question, and (3) the likelihood of confusion resulting from the similarity
between the applicants' mark and the opponents' marks. The degree of inconvenience that
would be experienced by the parties and the general public if the applicants' mark is
registered, as well as (4) if any instances of confusion have actually been demonstrated.

In this case, it might be argued that Karnataka's use of the mark is honest because it is an
acronym for its name, which is consistent with how several states have named their road
transport corporations, such as RSRTC or the UPSRTC. The KSRTC mark has also been
used concurrently by the two states for a number of decades, even on buses that cross
between them. The concurrent use of the mark has not been proved to cause any instances of
confusion, and a concurrent registration will not cause any specific difficulties for the parties
or the general public. Instead, given their familiarity with identifying the mark with
Karnataka SRTC buses, the public would experience greater annoyance if concurrent use was
not permitted.
The factors outlined by the Supreme Court in Cadila Healthcare with regard to risk of
confusion could be utilised to analyse the possible confusion produced by the concurrent use.
Both of these marks are used for the same kinds of services, have the same nature, and are
identical. The class of consumers for both services is diversified, spanning a wide range of
educational backgrounds and levels of degreed care. However, as far as other aspects go,
there is still a sizable disparity. There is no doubt that the Karnataka SRTC performs better
than its Kerala counterpart. There would be little uncertainty when buying tickets for the
services of the two corporations. Although the entire name of the company is listed on the
website for online purchases, there are extremely few instances for offline purchases where
both services cover the same routes because of their state-specific focuses. This is also
pertinent in light of the last aspect of the environment. There isn't much service overlap, thus
confusion is unlikely. Furthermore, any concerns of confusion are allayed by the fact that
buses from both corporations have their respective identifications on the number plates. As a
result, there is little uncertainty and all requirements for ethical concurrent usage are met.

The Registrar still has the option of approving the registration by citing the factor of "other
unusual circumstances" in the event that the honest concurrent usage exception is determined
to be inapplicable. The Supreme Court in London Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Durex Products had
considered, among other things, the mark being the company name and large duration of use
as relevant factors while deciding on other special circumstances, despite the fact that it is an
undefined discretionary power given to the Registrar. KSRTC is simply an acronym for the
corporation's name in the current situation. It has been in use for many years. This supports
concurrent registration of the mark strongly, together with low likelihood confusion and
public interest considerations.

It is most likely the best scenario for concurrent use. The main goal of trademark law is to
award a temporary monopoly on certain marks in order to lower customer search expenses. A
trademark monopoly to one state over the KSRTC mark would severely unbalance the
delicate cost-benefit ratio struck by trademarks in the case of conventional transport services
offered by a government institution with little chance of confusion. It would be pretty absurd
if concurrent use were not allowed in this situation because the concurrent use exception was
put in place to address this specific market failure.
CONCLUSION

Notably, although though the above justifications were presented from Karnataka's defence
against any infringement allegation, they would still apply to Kerala if the situation were
reversed, coupled with the added justification that Kerala was the earlier user. Despite this,
there seem to be compelling arguments in favour of allowing both Kerala and Karnataka to
utilise the KSRTC brand. It seems unexpected that there would be a disagreement between
the two states on this matter, and it is unclear what each state would stand to gain by
preventing the other from utilising the KSRTC mark. Laxman Savadi, the deputy Chief
minister and Minister of Transport for the state of Karnataka, also emphasised this, calling
the debate unnecessary and saying, "The service of the people is crucial for the two
corporations. Without focusing on revenue or rivalry, Karnataka or Kerala serve the public
and advance its interests. Therefore, no state should see this issue as one of reputation. Even
if it is the right attitude, it is unexpected that Karnataka has taken this position given that it
was the state that sparked the dispute by insisting on an exclusive use. This changed stance
only seems to be the result of Kerala also being able to register the KSRTC mark.

The dispute between Kerala and Karnataka has raised some important issues for the legal
community to think about. Although this cannot be referred to as a legal precedent because it
has not been decided by a judicial body, it has shed light on some standards, strategies, and
processes that must be followed in trademark issues. In this example, the historical
significance of the subject matter, which in this case was an acronym or mark, has also been
given important weight in addition to the first use requirement. A trademark is a type of
intellectual property, and it is important to understand how much a particular IPR is worth to
the people who own it. The two nations can even use the acronym together in a controlled
manner, and their peaceful cohabitation hasn't been affected by their disagreement.

It is important to note that because Karnataka is not expressly prohibited from using the
acronym, Kerala SRTC would need to file a lawsuit in order to prevent Karnataka from using
the abbreviation "KSRTC". There is no clear clause that prohibits the coexistence of the
disputed marks. The most important factor to take into account is fulfilling the requirements
outlined in Sections 9 and 12 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which are as follows:
"Registration in the case of honest concurrent use, etc. - In the case of honest concurrent use
or of other special circumstances which in the opinion of the Registrar, make it proper so to
do, he may permit the registration by more than one proprietor of the trademarks which are
identical or similar in respect of the same or similar goods or services.

Therefore, if both parties are considered to have rights over this acronym, as has been the
case for the years that KSRTC has been used by both state parties, then the amicable use of
the acronym/mark/abbreviations may continue quietly and without interruption.

The conflict between Kerala and Karnataka has brought up some significant problems for the
legal profession to consider. Despite the fact that this cannot be considered a precedent
because it has not been adjudicated by a court, it has provided insight into some
requirements, tactics, and procedures that must be followed in trademark disputes.