Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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