Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court Mother Killing Minor Children Over Husband's Refusal To Take Her To Workplace Is Murder, Not Culpable Homicide: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Of Registered Agreement To Sell Is No Longer Discretionary Post-2018 Amendment: Allahabad High Court Civil Court Has Jurisdiction To Determine If Tenanted Property Belongs To Joint Family Even If Tenancy Order Stands In Individual Karta's Name: Bombay High Court Notice Under Section 107 BNSS Mandatory Before Attaching Property; Right To Property Is A Constitutional Right: Calcutta High Court Post-Cognizance Arrest 'Makes No Sense' If Investigation Completed Without Arrest: Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under BNSS Criminal Courts Cannot Be Used To Settle Civil Inheritance Disputes Over Appreciated Land Values: Gujarat High Court Quashes Fraud Case Accused Must Raise Probable Defence To Rebut Statutory Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act If Signatures Are Undisputed: Himachal Pradesh High Court Passing Departmental Exam Not A Pre-requisite For Grant Of ACP/MACP Benefits: Jharkhand High Court Convenience Of Family And Accused Paramount For Jail Shifting; Trial Court Can't Reject Application Merely For Non-Residency: J&K High Court Litigants Who Attempt To Pollute The Stream Of Justice With Tainted Hands Are Not Entitled To Any Relief: Karnataka High Court Trial Court Must Implement Modified Preliminary Decree In Full: Telangana High Court Directs Partition Of Property Omitted In Final Decree Proceedings If Grievance Is Real But Lies Before Different Forum, Plaint Should Be Returned Under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, Not Rejected: Rajasthan High Court Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due To Severity Of Economic Offence If Evidence Is Documentary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Non-Compliance With Mandatory Duty To Inform Grounds Of Arrest Under Section 47 BNSS Is Impermissible: Orissa High Court Grants Bail Land Acquisition Award Finality Under Section 12 Is A Bar To Writ Petitions Challenging 'Public Necessity': Madhya Pradesh High Court State As Eminent Domain Is Obligated To Pay Adequate Compensation, Not Minimum To Suit Its Convenience: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Grants Emergency Parole To Life Convict To Execute Sale Deed, Repay Bank Loan To Prevent Family's Eviction High Court Cannot Act As Court Of First Instance In Service Matters Amenable To CAT Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Election Tribunal Has No Jurisdiction To Declare Caste Certificate Forged, Authority Vests Solely With Scrutiny Committee: Allahabad High Court Order IX Rule 7 CPC Requires 'Good Cause' Not 'Sufficient Cause'; Trial Court Can't Apply Higher Threshold To Pre-Decree Proceedings: Telangana High Court Victim Cannot Maintain Appeal Seeking Enhancement Of Sentence Under Section 372 CrPC; Such Power Exclusively With State: Rajasthan High Court Disability Pension: Presumption In Favour Of Personnel If Found Fit At Enrollment; Percentage Must Be Rounded Off: Punjab & Haryana HC Employee Entitled To Second Kramonnati Benefit If Promotion To Higher Post Does Not Result In Higher Pay Scale: Madhya Pradesh High Court Borrowers Can Be Granted Opportunity To Clear Loan Overdues In Installments To Prevent Coercive Action Under SARFAESI Act: Kerala High Court

A Registered Trademark is Liable to be Taken Off the Register if Not Used for Over Five Years: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has highlighted the imperative of bona fide use in trademark law. The Court’s decision was based on Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which mandates the removal of a trademark from the register if it is not used for a continuous period of five years and three months.

The case involved the petitioner, A.K. Al Muhaidib and Sons, seeking the cancellation of the “AL-WALIMAH” trademark, registered by respondent Chaman Lal Sachdeva, on grounds of non-use. The petitioner, who also used the “AL-WALIMAH” mark since 1980 and had subsequently registered related trademarks, claimed that the respondent had not used the mark since its registration in 1990.

Justice Anish Dayal scrutinized the application of Section 47 of the Act, stating, “A registered trade mark may be taken off the register in respect of the goods or services in respect of which it is registered… on the ground either—that the trade mark was registered without any bona fide intention… and that there has, in fact, been no bona fide use of the trade mark in relation to those goods or services by any proprietor thereof for the time being up to a date three months before the date of the application.” The Court relied upon evidence, including an investigation report and market surveys, which indicated the non-use of the “AL-WALIMAH” mark by the respondent.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the judgment underscored the criteria for determining a “person aggrieved” and established the necessity of demonstrating non-use for the removal of a trademark. The Court found the respondent’s lack of response and absence of evidence of use as sufficient grounds for removal.

The Court ordered the removal of the “AL-WALIMAH” trademark from the Trade Marks Register. Justice Dayal directed, “It is directed that the impugned mark under trademark no. 523217 dated 22nd January, 1990 for the mark ‘AL-WALIMAH’ in Class 30 be removed from the Register of Trade Marks, and the website of respondent no. 2, Registrar of Trade Marks, be updated accordingly.”

Date of Decision: February 15, 2024

A.K. Al Muhaidib and Sons vs. Chaman Lal Sachdeva and Anr.

Latest Legal News