{"id":26402,"date":"2026-07-03T08:08:42","date_gmt":"2026-07-03T08:08:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=26402"},"modified":"2026-07-03T08:11:32","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T08:11:32","slug":"ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision of the Delhi High Court in <strong><em>S.S. White Burs Inc. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks &amp; <\/em><\/strong>Anr is an important judgement on trademark rectification, bad faith adoption, prior proprietary rights, trans-border reputation, and the statutory duties of the Trade Marks Registry during examination of trademark applications.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 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\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Key_Highlights_of_the_Judgment\" >Key Highlights of the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Timeline_of_Events\" >Timeline of Events<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Subsequent_Proceedings\" >Subsequent Proceedings<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Procedural_History_at_a_Glance\" >Procedural History at a Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Respondents_Adoption_of_the_Mark\" >Respondent&#8217;s Adoption of the Mark<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Knowledge_of_the_Petitioners_Rights\" >Knowledge of the Petitioner\u2019s Rights<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Imitation_of_the_Stylized_Device_Mark\" >Imitation of the Stylized Device Mark<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Suppression_of_Material_Facts_Before_the_Trade_Marks_Registry\" >Suppression of Material Facts Before the Trade Marks Registry<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Mandatory_Trademark_Examination_in_Class_10\" >Mandatory Trademark Examination in Class 10<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Precedents_Relied_Upon_by_the_Court\" >Precedents Relied Upon by the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Rejection_of_Sections_12_and_34s_Defence\" >Rejection of Sections 12 and 34&#8217;s Defence<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Key_Findings_of_the_Court\" >Key Findings of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Important_Judicial_Precedents_Cited\" >Important Judicial Precedents Cited<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Key_Directions_Issued_by_the_Court\" >Key Directions Issued by the Court<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Legal_Principles_Established\" >Legal Principles Established<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement reinforces the principle that trademark registration cannot be sustained where it has been obtained through dishonest adoption, suppression of material facts, or in violation of mandatory statutory safeguards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The ruling is particularly significant for trademark owners, multinational businesses, intellectual property practitioners, and companies seeking to build brand value in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It highlights that a party cannot appropriate an established trademark merely because it has used the mark in India for several years if such use originated from an unauthorised or dishonest adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-highlights-of-the-judgment\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Highlights_of_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Key Highlights of the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Clarifies the law governing trademark rectification proceedings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reinforces the doctrine of bad faith adoption of trademarks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Recognises the importance of prior proprietary rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Discusses protection available to trademarks with transborder reputations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Emphasises the statutory responsibilities of the Trade Marks Registry during examination.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protects genuine trademark owners against dishonest registrations.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The dispute concerned the mark <strong>&#8220;S.S. WHITE&#8221;<\/strong> used in relation to dental products and allied medical goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The petitioner, <strong>S.S. White Burs Inc.<\/strong>, is a United States company engaged in the manufacture and sale of dental products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It traced the origin of the mark <strong>&#8220;S.S. WHITE&#8221;<\/strong> to Dr Samuel Stockton White, who commenced business under that name in 1844.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The petitioner claimed that, through a series of assignments and corporate transactions, global rights in the mark, including rights for India, ultimately vested in it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The petitioner asserted that it had been using the mark internationally since 1844 and had established a commercial presence in India through authorised distributors since 1991.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It held Indian trademark registration No. 609897 in Class 10 for <strong>&#8220;S.S. WHITE BURS INC.&#8221;<\/strong>, with an application date of 19 October 1993 and registration granted on 15 October 2001.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent, <strong>S.S. White Dental Private Limited<\/strong>, was incorporated in India in March 1992 and claimed adoption and use of the mark <strong>&#8220;S.S. WHITE&#8221;<\/strong> since 1992.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It obtained Trademark Registration No. 2147676 in Classes 5 and 10 based on an application filed on 20 May 2011, with registration granted on 13 November 2013.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-timeline-of-events\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Timeline_of_Events\"><\/span>Timeline of Events<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Year\/Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1844<\/td><td>Dr Samuel Stockton White commenced business under the name &#8220;S.S. WHITE&#8221;.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1991<\/td><td>The petitioner established a commercial presence in India through authorised distributors.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>19 October 1993<\/td><td>Petitioner filed Trademark Registration No. 609897 in Class 10.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>15 October 2001<\/td><td>Petitioner&#8217;s trademark registration was granted.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>March 1992<\/td><td>The respondent company was incorporated in India.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>20 May 2011<\/td><td>Respondent filed Trademark Registration No. 2147676 in Classes 5 and 10.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2012<\/td><td>Petitioner discovered the respondent&#8217;s use of the mark and issued a cease-and-desist notice.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>13 November 2013<\/td><td>Respondent&#8217;s trademark registration was granted.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-subsequent-proceedings\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subsequent_Proceedings\"><\/span>Subsequent Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to the petitioner, it discovered the respondent&#8217;s use of the mark in 2012 and issued a cease-and-desist notice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Subsequently, it learned that the respondent&#8217;s trademark application had already been accepted and advertised.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The petitioner filed a protest petition before the Trade Marks Registry and later approached the High Court through writ proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After the registration was granted, the petitioner initiated rectification proceedings seeking removal of the impugned registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The parties were also engaged in parallel commercial suits and cross-rectification proceedings relating to their respective trademark registrations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-procedural-history-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Procedural History at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The respondent adopted and applied for registration of the mark &#8220;S.S. WHITE&#8221;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Petitioner discovered the use and issued a cease-and-desist notice.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Petitioner filed a protest before the Trade Marks Registry.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Writ proceedings were initiated before the Delhi High Court.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Respondent&#8217;s trademark registration was granted.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Petitioner filed rectification proceedings seeking cancellation of the registration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Parallel commercial suits and cross-rectification proceedings were also pending between the parties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The principal dispute before the Court was whether the respondent\u2019s registration for the mark <strong>\u201cS.S. WHITE\u201d<\/strong> could validly remain on the register.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The petitioner argued that it was the prior adopter and proprietor of the mark, that the respondent had dishonestly copied both the word mark and stylised device mark, and that the registration had been secured through bad faith and procedural irregularities. It further contended that the Trade Marks Registry failed to conduct a mandatory examination in Class 10 and therefore overlooked the petitioner\u2019s earlier registration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent contended that it had honestly adopted the mark in India in the early 1990s, claimed prior use in the Indian market, relied upon honest concurrent use, and challenged the petitioner\u2019s claims regarding reputation and proprietary rights. The respondent also argued that the petitioner had not opposed the application during the opposition period and therefore could not later seek rectification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court undertook an extensive examination of the historical ownership of the mark <strong>\u201cS.S. WHITE&#8221;.<\/strong> It found that documentary evidence established a clear chain of title originating from Dr Samuel Stockton White and ultimately vesting in the petitioner through assignment agreements and amendments executed in 1986 and 1989. The Court accepted that the petitioner held global proprietary rights in the mark, including rights in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court concluded that <strong>\u201cS.S. WHITE\u201d<\/strong> was a coined and inherently distinctive mark rather than a descriptive expression. It further held that the petitioner had demonstrated longstanding international use, substantial goodwill, worldwide registrations, and commercial presence in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-respondent-s-adoption-of-the-mark\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Adoption_of_the_Mark\"><\/span>Respondent&#8217;s Adoption of the Mark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A significant aspect of the judgement concerned the respondent\u2019s explanation for adopting the mark. The Court noted that the respondent claimed to have adopted the mark at the instance of S.S. White UK. However, no written authorisation was produced.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court found contradictions between the respondent\u2019s pleadings and its earlier explanation provided to the Registrar of Companies regarding the origin of the name. These inconsistencies led the Court to conclude that the respondent\u2019s adoption lacked honesty and bona fides.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-knowledge-of-the-petitioner-s-rights\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Knowledge_of_the_Petitioners_Rights\"><\/span>Knowledge of the Petitioner\u2019s Rights<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also placed considerable reliance on historical correspondence from 1993 showing that the respondent had been informed of the petitioner\u2019s rights long before obtaining registration. The Court held that the respondent had knowledge of the petitioner\u2019s rights and nonetheless continued using and seeking registration of the mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-imitation-of-the-stylized-device-mark\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Imitation_of_the_Stylized_Device_Mark\"><\/span>Imitation of the Stylized Device Mark<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another factor weighing heavily against the respondent was its imitation of the petitioner\u2019s stylised device mark. The Court observed that the respondent had copied the font, presentation, and overall visual appearance of the petitioner\u2019s trademark, thereby evidencing an intention to ride upon the petitioner\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this regard, reliance was placed upon <em>Kia Wang v. The Registrar of Trademarks &amp; Anr., 2023:DHC:6684.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-suppression-of-material-facts-before-the-trade-marks-registry\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Suppression_of_Material_Facts_Before_the_Trade_Marks_Registry\"><\/span>Suppression of Material Facts Before the Trade Marks Registry<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court further found that the respondent had failed to disclose material facts to the Trade Marks Registry, including the existence of the petitioner\u2019s prior registration and the ongoing dispute between the parties. Such suppression was held to constitute bad faith under Section 11(10)(ii) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-mandatory-trademark-examination-in-class-10\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mandatory_Trademark_Examination_in_Class_10\"><\/span>Mandatory Trademark Examination in Class 10<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A separate and important ground concerned the examination process. The Court found that the Registry had not conducted the mandatory search and examination in Class 10 despite the respondent seeking registration in that class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Had the statutory examination under Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules been properly conducted, the petitioner\u2019s earlier registration would necessarily have been cited, and the application would have faced refusal under Section 11(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court relied significantly on <em>Ashiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited &amp; Ors., 2025:DHC:7801-DB<\/em>, which emphasised the mandatory nature of trademark examination and the Registrar\u2019s duty to identify conflicting marks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-precedents-relied-upon-by-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Precedents_Relied_Upon_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Precedents Relied Upon by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also referred to <em>BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati &amp; Anr., 2023:DHC:2920<\/em>, on the relevance of bad faith in trademark registration proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It distinguished <em>Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 167<\/em>, holding that the present case involved actual use and presence in India in addition to evidence of reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-rejection-of-sections-12-and-34-s-defence\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Rejection_of_Sections_12_and_34s_Defence\"><\/span>Rejection of Sections 12 and 34&#8217;s Defence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent\u2019s reliance on Sections 12 and 34 of the Trade Marks Act was rejected because honest concurrent use and prior user defences are unavailable where adoption itself is found to be dishonest and derivative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-findings-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Findings_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Key Findings of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Court&#8217;s Finding<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Ownership of &#8220;S.S. WHITE&#8221;<\/td><td>Petitioner established a valid chain of title and proprietary rights.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Distinctiveness<\/td><td>The mark was held to be coined and inherently distinctive.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Respondent&#8217;s Adoption<\/td><td>Adoption was found to be dishonest and lacking bona fides.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Prior Knowledge<\/td><td>Respondent had prior knowledge of the petitioner&#8217;s rights since 1993.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Stylized Device Mark<\/td><td>Respondent copied the petitioner\u2019s font, presentation, and visual appearance.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Bad Faith<\/td><td>Material facts were suppressed before the Trade Marks Registry.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark Examination<\/td><td>Mandatory examination in Class 10 was not conducted.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Statutory Defences<\/td><td>Sections 12 and 34 were held inapplicable due to dishonest adoption.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-important-judicial-precedents-cited\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Judicial_Precedents_Cited\"><\/span>Important Judicial Precedents Cited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Kia Wang v. The Registrar of Trademarks &amp; Anr., 2023:DHC:6684<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Ashiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited &amp; Ors., 2025:DHC:7801-DB<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati &amp; Anr., 2023:DHC:2920<\/em><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries Ltd., AIR 2018 SC 167<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court held that Trademark Registration No. 2147676 for the mark <strong>\u201cS.S. WHITE\u201d<\/strong> in Classes 5 and 10 constituted an entry made without sufficient cause and wrongly remaining on the register within the meaning of Section 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Accordingly, the registration was ordered to be removed from the register, and the rectification petition filed by S.S. White Burs Inc. was allowed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The cross-rectification petition filed by S.S. White Dental Private Limited seeking cancellation of the petitioner\u2019s registration was dismissed in its entirety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court permitted the respondent to dispose of its existing stock bearing the impugned mark within one month subject to filing an affidavit and maintaining accounts before the single judge in the pending commercial suit. Costs of \u20b910 lakhs in each petition, aggregating to \u20b920 lakhs, were awarded in favour of the petitioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-directions-issued-by-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Directions_Issued_by_the_Court\"><\/span>Key Directions Issued by the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Trademark Registration No. 2147676 for the mark <strong>\u201cS.S. WHITE\u201d<\/strong> was ordered to be removed from the register.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The rectification petition filed by S.S. White Burs Inc. was allowed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The cross-rectification petition filed by S.S. White Dental Private Limited was dismissed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The respondent was permitted to dispose of its existing stock within one month, subject to filing an affidavit and maintaining accounts before the Single Judge.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Costs of \u20b910 lakhs in each petition, aggregating to \u20b920 lakhs, were awarded in favour of the petitioner.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement reaffirms that a trademark registration obtained through dishonest adoption, suppression of material facts, imitation of a prior mark, or bad-faith conduct is liable to be cancelled under Sections 11(10)(ii) and 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision also clarifies that the Registrar\u2019s duty to conduct an examination under Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules is mandatory and substantive. Failure to conduct a proper examination, particularly where identical marks exist for identical goods, can render the resulting registration vulnerable to rectification. Further, a party claiming honest concurrent use or prior user rights cannot succeed where its adoption is derivative, unauthorised, or tainted by bad faith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-legal-principles-established\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principles_Established\"><\/span>Legal Principles Established<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Dishonest adoption of a trademark can lead to cancellation of registration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Suppression of material facts may invalidate a trademark registration.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Imitation of a prior trademark constitutes a ground for rectification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bad faith adoption attracts cancellation under Sections 11(10)(ii) and 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Registrar&#8217;s examination under Rule 33 of the Trademarks Rules is mandatory and substantive.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Failure to properly examine conflicting marks can make the registration vulnerable to rectification.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Claims of honest concurrent use or prior user rights will fail where adoption is derivative, unauthorised, or tainted by bad faith.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td><strong>S.S. White Burs Inc. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks &amp; Anr.<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgment\/Order<\/th><td>25.04.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 448\/2022<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:DHC:3478<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of the Honourable Judge<\/th><td>Ms Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/vanishing-point-of-international-law-debate\/\">The Fading Horizon: Is International Law &#8216;Real&#8217; Law or Just a Vanishing Point?<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/comparative-analysis-of-h-o-agarwals-international-organizations-and-nigel-d-whites-the-law-of-international-organizations\/\">Comparative Analysis of H.O. Agarwal\u2019s International Organizations and Nigel D. White\u2019s The Law of International Organizations<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/white-collar-crimes\/\">White Collar Crimes in India: Legal Framework, Key Sectors, and Judicial Response<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-protection-and-its-registration-process-in-india\/\">Trademark Protection and Its Registration Process in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/sentencing-discrimination-the-hidden-bias-in-judicial-punishment\/\">Sentencing Discrimination: The Hidden Bias in Judicial Punishment<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The decision of the Delhi High Court in S.S. White Burs Inc. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks &amp; Anr is an important judgement on trademark rectification, bad faith adoption, prior proprietary rights, trans-border reputation, and the statutory duties of the Trade Marks Registry during examination of trademark applications. The judgement reinforces the principle<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","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,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-26402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.9) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Delhi High Court cancels the S.S. WHITE trademark, clarifying bad faith, trademark rectification and trans-border reputation in India.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Delhi High Court cancels the S.S. WHITE trademark, clarifying bad faith, trademark rectification and trans-border reputation in India.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-03T08:08:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-03T08:11:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-03T08:08:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T08:11:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2074,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-03T08:08:42+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T08:11:32+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Delhi High Court cancels the S.S. WHITE trademark, clarifying bad faith, trademark rectification and trans-border reputation in India.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Bad Faith Trademark Registration Cannot Survive: Delhi High Court's Landmark S.S. WHITE Judgment\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Delhi High Court cancels the S.S. WHITE trademark, clarifying bad faith, trademark rectification and trans-border reputation in India.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation","og_description":"The Delhi High Court cancels the S.S. WHITE trademark, clarifying bad faith, trademark rectification and trans-border reputation in India.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-03T08:08:42+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-03T08:11:32+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation","datePublished":"2026-07-03T08:08:42+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T08:11:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/"},"wordCount":2074,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/","name":"Delhi High Court Cancels S.S. WHITE Trademark: Landmark Judgment on Bad Faith Adoption, Trademark Rectification &amp; Trans-Border Reputation - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-03T08:08:42+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T08:11:32+00:00","description":"The Delhi High Court cancels the S.S. WHITE trademark, clarifying bad faith, trademark rectification and trans-border reputation in India.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ss-white-trademark-delhi-high-court-bad-faith-rectification-judgment\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Bad Faith Trademark Registration Cannot Survive: Delhi High Court's Landmark S.S. WHITE Judgment"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26402","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=26402"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26402\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27222,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26402\/revisions\/27222"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}