Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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