Section 26 of TMA : Section 26: Effect Of Removal From Register For Failure To Pay Fee For Renewal

Where a trade mark has been removed from the register for failure to pay the fee for renewal, it shall nevertheless, for the purpose of any application for the registration of another trade mark during one year, next after the date of the removal, be deemed to be a trade mark already on the register, unless the Registrar or the High Court, as the case may be, is satisfied either:

1. that there has been no bona fide trade use of the trade mark which has been removed during the two years immediately preceding its removal; or
2. that no deception or confusion would be likely to arise from the use of the trade mark which is the subject of the application for registration by reason of any previous use of the trade mark which has been removed.

If a trade mark is taken off the official list because the renewal fee wasn't paid, it will still be considered as if it's on the list for one year after it was removed. This matters if someone wants to register a new trade mark during that year. However, the trade mark will not be considered if either:

1. The trade mark that was removed wasn't really used in business for the two years before it was taken off the list; or
2. Using the new trade mark wouldn't trick or confuse people because of any past use of the trade mark that was removed.

Let's say, the trademark "FruitVille" for a juice brand was removed from the register because the company failed to pay the renewal fee. Now, a new company wants to register a similar trademark "FruitVilla" within a year of "FruitVille" being removed. According to Section 26 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999, "FruitVille" will still be considered as an existing trademark for the next one year unless:

1. The Registrar or the High Court is convinced that there has been no genuine trade use of "FruitVille" during the two years before its removal. For instance, if the "FruitVille" juices weren't actually sold in the market in the past two years, the new company might be allowed to register "FruitVilla".
2. Or, it is determined that no deception or confusion would likely arise from the use of "FruitVilla". This might be the case if the new company's products are significantly different from the old company's, making it unlikely for consumers to confuse between the two.