{"id":10542,"date":"2025-10-24T05:07:37","date_gmt":"2025-10-24T05:07:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=10542"},"modified":"2025-10-30T01:56:30","modified_gmt":"2025-10-30T01:56:30","slug":"fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/","title":{"rendered":"Fabricated Evidence and trademark rectification"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"facts-of-the-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_the_Case_Le_Shark_Trademark_Dispute_Bombay_High_Court_Judgment\"><\/span>Facts of the Case: Le Shark Trademark Dispute: Bombay High Court Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The case revolves around a dispute concerning the ownership and validity of the trademark <strong>\u201cLE SHARK\u201d<\/strong>, used for apparel and clothing items. The petitioner, <strong>Le Shark Apparel Limited<\/strong>, is a UK-based company that owns several trademarks registered across the United Kingdom and Europe since the 1980s. The company claims a long and well-established brand identity in clothing, footwear, and accessories under the \u201cLe Shark\u201d name and its distinctive shark device logo.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Facts_of_the_Case_Le_Shark_Trademark_Dispute_Bombay_High_Court_Judgment\" >Facts of the Case: Le Shark Trademark Dispute: Bombay High Court Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Procedural_History\" >Procedural History<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#The_Dispute\" >The Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#The_Petitioners_Contention\" >The Petitioner\u2019s Contention<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Legal_Arguments_and_Authorities_Cited\" >Legal Arguments and Authorities Cited<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Respondents_Argument\" >Respondent\u2019s Argument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Courts_Reasoning\" >Court\u2019s Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Key_Findings\" >Key Findings<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Significance_of_This_Judgment\" >Significance of This Judgment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fabricated-evidence-and-trademark-rectification\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The trademark \u201cLE SHARK\u201d was originally conceived and adopted in 1984 by the petitioner\u2019s predecessor, Le Shark Limited (UK). Over time, the mark was assigned through various entities \u2014 Joseph Leshark Limited, Hamsard 2353 Ltd., and finally to Le Shark Apparel Limited, the present petitioner. The brand achieved substantial international goodwill and was widely sold across Europe and other global markets.<\/p>\n<p>The respondent, <strong>Anil Shah<\/strong>, applied for registration of the same mark \u201cLE SHARK\u201d in India in 1987 under Application No. 466002 in Class 25, covering clothing, footwear, and accessories. The application was made on a \u201cproposed to be used\u201d basis. This registration was granted in 1991 and later assigned to M\/s. Le Shark LLP (Respondent No. 2). The mark was renewed multiple times, most recently in 2018.<\/p>\n<p>When the petitioner sought to register its own \u201cLE SHARK\u201d mark in India in 2015, the Trademark Registry cited the respondent\u2019s earlier registration as conflicting. The petitioner\u2019s application was refused in 2021, leading to this rectification petition under <strong>Sections 47 and 57<\/strong> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the respondent\u2019s mark due to non-use, lack of bona fide intention, and fraudulent adoption.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-history\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History\"><\/span>Procedural History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The rectification petition was initially filed before the <strong>Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB)<\/strong> in 2018 and admitted in October 2018. After the abolition of the IPAB under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the case was transferred to the <strong>Bombay High Court<\/strong> for adjudication.<\/p>\n<p>During pendency, the petitioner\u2019s application was rejected by the Registrar of Trademarks in April 2021. A review petition was filed but remained pending. The rectification petition was eventually heard and reserved for judgment in April 2025.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"the-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute\"><\/span>The Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The main question before the Court was whether the respondents\u2019 registered trademark \u201cLE SHARK\u201d should remain on the register or be expunged under <strong>Sections 47 and 57<\/strong> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The petitioner argued that the respondents never used the mark in good faith and dishonestly adopted it.<\/li>\n<li>The respondents claimed continuous lawful use since 1987 and legitimate registration.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"petitioners-contentions\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Petitioners_Contention\"><\/span>The Petitioner\u2019s Contention<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The petitioner alleged that the respondents, who had previously manufactured garments for its affiliates in India, knowingly and dishonestly adopted the \u201cLe Shark\u201d mark. Their actions constituted trademark squatting on an internationally recognized brand.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"legal-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Arguments_and_Authorities_Cited\"><\/span>Legal Arguments and Authorities Cited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Under <strong>Section 47(1)(a)<\/strong>: No bona fide intention to use the mark at the time of registration.<\/li>\n<li>Under <strong>Section 47(1)(b)<\/strong>: Non-use for a continuous period of five years before filing of the petition.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The petitioner claimed the respondents\u2019 invoices were fabricated and lacked evidentiary support. Cited judgments included:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Ltd.<\/em> (1997 SCC OnLine Bom 578)<\/li>\n<li><em>Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. Denver Chemicals Manufacturing Co.<\/em> (AIR 1959 Cal 636)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"respondents-arguments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Argument\"><\/span>Respondent\u2019s Argument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The respondents argued that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The petitioner lacked trans-border reputation in India before 2014.<\/li>\n<li>The mark \u201cLe Shark\u201d had been lawfully used since 1987.<\/li>\n<li>The petition was delayed and barred by limitation.<\/li>\n<li>Invoices and evidence of use were genuine.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>They relied on <em>Eagle Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd.<\/em> (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 490) to argue that the burden of proving non-use rests with the petitioner. They also questioned the petitioner\u2019s authority, citing <em>ONGC v. Offshore Enterprises Inc.<\/em> (1993 Mh LJ 243).<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"court-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Courts_Reasoning\"><\/span>Court\u2019s Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Court analyzed <strong>Sections 47 and 57<\/strong> as mechanisms for removing marks registered without bona fide use or by fraud.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"findings\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Findings\"><\/span>Key Findings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li>Evidence of <strong>dishonest adoption<\/strong> was clear \u2014 the respondent\u2019s mark and logo were identical to earlier European registrations from 1985.<\/li>\n<li>Invoices submitted were fabricated \u2014 they mentioned a company incorporated years later.<\/li>\n<li>Mere website presence or sporadic use does not constitute bona fide use.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Court cited:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>Jayant Industries v. Indian Tobacco Company<\/em> (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 64)<\/li>\n<li><em>S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath<\/em> (1994) 1 SCC 1<\/li>\n<li><em>La Societe Anonyme Des Parfums Le Galion v. Jean Patou Inc.<\/em> (1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9252)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Procedural objections on the petitioner\u2019s power of attorney were dismissed as minor and curable, citing:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><em>United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar<\/em> (1996) 6 SCC 660<\/li>\n<li><em>Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Ishwarbhai Somabhai Patel<\/em> (1958 SCC OnLine Bom 99)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The <a href=\"\/lawyers\/bombay.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><strong>Bombay High Court<\/strong><\/a> allowed the petition and directed rectification of the register by removing <strong>Trademark No. 466002 in Class 25 (\u201cLE SHARK\u201d)<\/strong> registered in the respondents\u2019 name.<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Le Shark Apparel Limited Vs. Anil Shah &amp; Others<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Pronounced On<\/th>\n<td>14 October 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Number<\/th>\n<td>Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 538 of 2022<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025:BHC-OS:18797<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Commercial Division, Original Side)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Coram<\/th>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"significance\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Significance_of_This_Judgment\"><\/span>Significance of This Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Reaffirms that dishonest or bad-faith registrations can be removed even after decades.<\/li>\n<li>Clarifies that fabricated evidence undermines a party\u2019s defense completely.<\/li>\n<li>Emphasizes the importance of <strong>bona fide use<\/strong> over token or sporadic activities.<\/li>\n<li>Asserts that procedural irregularities cannot override substantive justice where fraud is apparent.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception or interpretation.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong><br \/>\nIP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], <a href=\"\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">High Court of Delhi<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Facts of the Case: Le Shark Trademark Dispute: Bombay High Court Judgment The case revolves around a dispute concerning the ownership and validity of the trademark \u201cLE SHARK\u201d, used for apparel and clothing items. The petitioner, Le Shark Apparel Limited, is a UK-based company that owns several trademarks registered across the United Kingdom and Europe<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[841],"class_list":{"0":"post-10542","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-trademark-law"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10542","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10542"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10542\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10542"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10542"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10542"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}