Delhi High Court Held: Registered Trademark Can Be Cancelled for Non Use

Introduction

Trademark laws are designed to protect company identities, not to create rigid monopolies that fail to reflect market realities. Registration grants statutory rights, but these rights are subject to consistent and lawful use. The Trade Marks Act of 1999 introduced Section 47 to prevent the Register from becoming cluttered with dormant or speculative marks that hinder legitimate business activities.

In the case of Yashasvi Havelia v. Prabh Tej Bhatia and Anr., the petitioner sought the Delhi High Court’s rectification power to remove the mark “BANDOOK” from Class 33 due to prolonged non-use. The case raised a straightforward yet crucial question: Whether a registered proprietor cannot demonstrate legitimate economic use for the required period, can they still retain exclusivity solely by virtue of registration?

The Court’s decision upholds the functional basis of trademark protection and clarifies the burden of proof in non-use rectification proceedings.

Facts

Yashasvi Havelia, the petitioner, is the proprietor of the trademark “BANDOOK” in Class 32, covering beer and non-alcoholic beverages. To expand her alcoholic beverage business, the petitioner registered the trademark “BANDOOK” under Class 33. During the public search, the petitioner discovered that Respondent No. 1, Sh. Prabhtej Bhatia, was the registered owner of the identical mark “BANDOOK” under Class 33. Prior to filing the petition, the petitioner asserted that the respondent had not used the mark in connection with the registered goods continuously for more than five years. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the removal of the respondent’s trademark from the register under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Legal Issues

1. Whether the petitioner meets the requirements of Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999 to be considered a “person aggrieved.”

2. Whether the Respondent’s registered trademark “BANDOOK” in Class 33 may be revoked due to non-use for a continuous period of five years and three months prior to the filing of the rectification petition.

3. Should the mark be removed due to the Respondent’s non-appearance and failure to provide evidence of use?

Legal Framework

According to Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act of 1999, the Registrar has the authority to strike a registered trademark from the Register of Trade Marks if it has not been used continuously for five years and three months prior to the filing of the rectification petition.

A well-established rule states that if the petitioner raises a “non-use” plea, the burden of proof lies with them; however, if the respondent does not contest the plea, the allegation of “non-use” will be accepted, and the disputed trademark may be removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

Contention of Petitioner

The petitioner claimed to be a “person aggrieved” with the authority to file this case, asserting that their commercial interests were severely harmed. The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 1 had no bonafide intention to use the impugned mark as there is no commercial activity or digital presence of any product sold by Respondent. Therefore, the mark should be removed due to “non-use.”

Observations of the Court

The Delhi High Court Observed:

1. The court finds that the Respondent failed to obtain any excise licenses or regulatory clearances required for the lawful manufacture, distribution, or sale of alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, there is no documentation of a current manufacturing license, trademark registration, or commercial presence for the disputed mark. The Respondent has no right to use the mark in the course of business, as no efforts have been made to manufacture, market, or sell the goods within the five years following registration.

2. The court addressed the petitioner, a registered proprietor of the mark “BANDOOK” in Class 32, was unable to expand its business under Class 33 due to the respondent’s contested mark. The court recognized that the petitioner is a “person aggrieved” under Section 47 of the 1999 Act because the prejudice affects her business venture related to the registration of her trademark in the same class.

3. The court explains that a trademark may be removed from the Register of Trade Marks if it has not been used consistently for five years and three months prior to the date of the rectification petition submitted under Section 47(1)(b) of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner alleged the ‘non-use’ of the Respondent mark for more than seven years. However, the respondent has neither appeared in court nor the petitioner’s claim, and did not present any evidence of the mark’s commercial use. Although the petitioner has continuous and extensive use of the “BANDOOK” mark under Class 32, and has applied for registration under Class 33 on “proposed to be used” basis.

Judgement

Justice Jyoti Singh asserted that the Petitioner is the aggrieved party under Section 47 of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and that the Respondent failed to demonstrate lawful use of the trademark “BANDOOK” in Class 33 for the required period. The Court granted the petition and directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the Respondent’s trademark “BANDOOK” under Class 33 from the Register of Trade Marks.

Conclusion

In this judgment, the Delhi High Court correctly applied Section 47(1)(b) of the Act by ruling that a registration is subject to removal after a prolonged period of unexplained non-use. The Court upheld both market fairness and parliamentary intent by recognizing the petitioner as an aggrieved party and emphasizing the respondent’s failure to demonstrate legitimate economic use. Consequently, the practical foundation of trademark protection is strengthened by deterring speculative registrations.

Ultimately, the decision highlights that trademark law is not a tool for passive control but rather a guarantee of an active commercial identity. Since registration without use is merely superficial, the law does not encourage inactivity.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025, YASHASVI HAVELIA V. PRABHTEJ BHATIA