UDCPR | Municipal Authorities Empowered To Grant Relaxation For Recreational Open Spaces In Redevelopment Projects: Bombay High Court Appellate Court Can Enhance Compensation Under Motor Vehicles Act Even Without Cross-Appeal By Claimants: Allahabad High Court State Instrumentalities Cannot Supplement Reasons For Withholding Public Money Via Affidavits Years Later: Calcutta High Court Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act | Victim's Status As 'Illegal Immigrant' Does Not Dilute Offence Or Shield Perpetrator: Bombay High Court Clubbing Of Criminal Trials | No Basis To Direct Consolidation If Connected Proceedings Have Already Concluded: Delhi High Court IBC ‘Clean Slate’ Principle Cannot Extinguish Pre-existing Crystallized Liability Under Labour Awards: Bombay High Court Section 406 IPC | 'Donation' Does Not Constitute 'Entrustment'; Criminal Prosecution Quashed In Absence Of Aggrieved Victim: Delhi High Court Failure To Deliver Possession Of Plot Constitutes "Continuous Wrong" Giving Rise To Recurrent Cause Of Action Under Consumer Protection Act: Delhi State Commission High Court Cannot Entertain Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Statutory Appellate Remedy Under Section 107 CGST Act Is Available: Gujarat High Court Appointment Of Temple Servants Is The Exclusive Prerogative Of The Hereditary Trustee: Kerala High Court Stay Of Suit Proceedings Under CPC Does Not Automatically Bar Adjudication Of Pending Temporary Injunction Application: Rajasthan High Court Section 136A MV Act | Supreme Court Directs States To Impound Vehicles With Unpaid E-Challans And Mandates Electronic Enforcement Compliance Section 115 CPC | Executing Court Cannot Dismiss Execution Petition On Hyper-Technical Grounds Regarding LRs Of Judgment Debtor: Himachal Pradesh High Court Succession Act | Will Not Validly Executed If Attesting Witness Admits Signing Without Witnessing Testator’s Signature: Madras High Court High Court Cannot Interfere Under Article 227 To Correct Errors Of Fact Or Act As An Appellate Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Act 1961 | Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocate Pending Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad High Court Identification Of Accused By Police Personnel In Pitch Darkness Without Prior Acquaintance Is Unreliable: Himachal Pradesh High Court Body Shaming Or Insulting Physical Appearance Does Not Per Se Constitute Offence Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court Drishyam 3 | Interim Injunction To Restrain Film Release Cannot Be Granted Without Establishing Clear Subsisting Legal Right: Madras High Court Town Planning Scheme | Statutory Notice To Occupiers Under Rule 12(2)(a) Punjab Municipal Rules Is Mandatory And Independent Of Notice To Owner: Punjab & Haryana 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