Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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