Introduction
In a clear and practical ruling, the Delhi High Court has once again reinforced that trademarks which are registered but never used in the market cannot be allowed to block genuine businesses. The Court removed the mark ‘BANDOOK’ from the Register in Class 33 because the registered owner had not used it for more than five years. This judgment protects honest traders who want to use a mark and sends a strong signal that the trademark register must remain clean and reflect actual commercial use.
Factual Background
Yashasvi Havelia is actively engaged in the beverage business. The petitioner had already secured registration of the trademark ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 32 for beer and non-alcoholic drinks.
When the petitioner decided to expand into alcoholic beverages (excluding beer) and applied for registration in Class 33, a search revealed an existing registration of the identical mark ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 33 in the name of Prabhtej Bhatia, trading as Raipur Bottling Company.
The petitioner claimed that the respondent had never used the mark for any alcoholic beverages since its registration in 2018 and had no genuine intention to use it.
Key Factual Points
- Petitioner already holds registration of ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 32.
- Application filed for ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 33.
- Existing identical registration found in Class 33.
- Allegation of non-use since 2018.
- No genuine intention to use the mark.
Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the impugned registration on the ground of non-use.
The petition was duly served on the respondent. Despite service, the respondent neither appeared nor filed any reply.
The Registrar of Trade Marks was impleaded as Respondent No.2 and appeared through counsel but raised no opposition. The matter proceeded ex parte against Respondent No.1.
After hearing the petitioner, the Court delivered its judgment on 22 January 2026, which contained a typographical error in the operative paragraph. This error was corrected by a subsequent order dated 10 February 2026 under Section 152 CPC, with the consent of the Registrar.
Procedural Timeline
| Event | Description |
|---|---|
| Filing of Petition | Rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 |
| Service on Respondent | Respondent did not appear or file reply |
| Ex Parte Proceedings | Matter proceeded against Respondent No.1 |
| Judgment | 22 January 2026 |
| Correction Order | 10 February 2026 under Section 152 CPC |
Reasoning And Decision Of Court
Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the respondent’s complete silence and failure to file any reply meant that all allegations made in the petition stood admitted.
The petitioner had clearly pleaded that the mark had not been used for over five years, supported by investigations showing no excise licences, no manufacturing approvals, no brand registrations, and no commercial activity under the mark.
The Court held that the petitioner is a “person aggrieved” because it already holds registration of the identical mark in Class 32 and has a pending application in Class 33. The continued presence of the unused registration was blocking the petitioner’s legitimate business expansion.
Placing reliance on consistent precedents of the Delhi High Court, the judge ruled that once non-use is pleaded and not specifically denied, the allegation is deemed admitted and the mark becomes liable for removal under Section 47(1)(b) of the Act.
The Court found that the respondent had no bona fide intention to use the mark and had merely squatted on the registration.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the Trade Marks Registry was directed to remove the mark ‘BANDOOK’ under Registration No.3762319 in Class 33 from the Register and rectify the records to maintain its purity.
Grounds For Removal
- Non-use for more than five years.
- No bona fide intention to use the mark.
- No rebuttal or denial by the registered proprietor.
- Blocking legitimate business expansion of the petitioner.
Point Of Law Settled In The Case
This judgment settles that when a rectification petition pleads non-use of a registered trademark for the statutory period and the registered proprietor does not appear or specifically deny the allegation, the plea of non-use is deemed admitted and the mark is liable to be removed under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It also reaffirms that a person who has registered or applied for the same or similar mark in a related class and whose business interests are affected is a “person aggrieved” entitled to maintain such a petition.
The ruling further clarifies that mere registration without genuine commercial use does not entitle the proprietor to block others, and the Register must be kept free of dead or unused marks.
Case Details
| Case Title | Yashasvi Havelia Vs. Prabhtej Bhatia And Anr. |
|---|---|
| Date Of Order | 22 January 2026 |
| Case Number | C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:884 |
| Name Of Court | High Court Of Delhi |
| Name Of Judge | Hon’ble Justice Jyoti Singh |
