{"id":6142,"date":"2025-07-11T11:04:41","date_gmt":"2025-07-11T11:04:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=6142"},"modified":"2025-07-11T11:07:25","modified_gmt":"2025-07-11T11:07:25","slug":"proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/","title":{"rendered":"The Threshold of Proof in Allegations of Fraud in trademark cancellation"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Sita_Ram_Iron_Foundry_and_Engineering_Works_v_Hindustan_Technocast_P_Ltd_Anr\"><\/span>Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. &amp; Anr.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 09 July 2025<\/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\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Sita_Ram_Iron_Foundry_and_Engineering_Works_v_Hindustan_Technocast_P_Ltd_Anr\" >Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. &amp; Anr.<\/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\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Factual_Background\" >Factual Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/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\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/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\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Discussion_on_Judgments\" >Discussion on Judgments<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/proof-in-allegations-of-fraud-in-trademark-cancellation\/#Law_Settled_in_This_Case\" >Law Settled in This Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150\/2021<\/p>\n<p><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:5395<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<p><strong>Judge:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The case raises significant questions of trademark ownership, assignment validity, and the burden of proof in rectification proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner sought cancellation of the trademark \u201cBADAL\u201d registered in favour of Hindustan Technocast, alleging fraud and impropriety in the chain of title. The Delhi High Court adjudicated the matter and delivered the judgment on 9 July 2025.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_Background\"><\/span>Factual Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The petitioner, M\/s Sita Ram Iron Foundry, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Toka machines, is the registered proprietor of the trademark \u201cGHANGHOR BADAL\u201d, applied for in 2013 and registered in 2017 under Class 07. The petitioner has claimed continuous use since 2002.<\/p>\n<p>The impugned mark \u201cBADAL\u201d, originally registered in 2000 by M\/s Jodh Singh Sehmbey and Sons, was later claimed to have been assigned to Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey in 2006, and subsequently to Hindustan Technocast in 2011. The petitioner alleged that these assignments were fraudulent and defective, and that the respondent had wrongly obtained the registration.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The rectification petition was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and transferred to the Delhi High Court following IPAB\u2019s abolition via the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021. The petition, filed under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, arose from a trademark infringement suit filed by the respondent in the District Court, Jind, Haryana, where the petitioner is defendant no. 2. The Jind Court had stayed proceedings under Section 124 of the Act pending the rectification petition.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The core issue was whether the respondent\u2019s trademark \u201cBADAL\u201d had been fraudulently assigned and registered, thereby warranting rectification. The petitioner challenged the authenticity of two assignment deeds \u2013 one dated 25 May 2006 (from the original firm to Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey) and another dated 12 April 2011 (from Iqbal Singh to Hindustan Technocast). The petitioner alleged that the first was self-dealing and the second contained irregularities, including multiple conflicting versions.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Discussion_on_Judgments\"><\/span>Discussion on Judgments<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The petitioner relied on <em>Anshul Vaish v. Hari Om<\/em>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 664, where fabricated user documents were found to undermine the respondent\u2019s claim. The Court held the user documents to be forged due to references to a TIN number issued after the alleged use date.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioner also cited <em>Gandhi Scientific Co. v. Gulshan Kumar<\/em>, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 820, and <em>Khushi Ram Behari Lal v. Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh<\/em>, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6702, to argue that manipulation in assignment records could render registrations void ab initio.<\/p>\n<p>In contrast, the Court relied on <em>Safari International v. Subhash Gupta<\/em>, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1767, where it was held that fraud must be pleaded with specificity and proved with cogent evidence. Mere allegations are insufficient to cancel a registered mark.<\/p>\n<p>The Court also cited the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <em>A.C. Ananthaswamy v. Boraiah<\/em>, (2004) 8 SCC 588, emphasizing that allegations of fraud require a high standard of proof\u2014akin to criminal trials.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, <em>Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad<\/em>, (2024) 4 SCC 696, and <em>Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan<\/em>, (1999) 8 SCC 396, were relied on to reinforce that a plaintiff cannot succeed merely due to the absence of a written statement by the defendant. The burden remains on the petitioner to prove its case.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court held that no conclusive evidence was brought on record by the petitioner to prove that the assignment deeds were fraudulent. The claim that Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey executed the deed in both capacities\u2014as assignor and assignee\u2014was deemed insufficient, especially as no HUF member contested it. The Registrar had accepted Forms TM-16 and TM-24 supporting the transfer.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding the second assignment to Hindustan Technocast, the Court noted two conflicting versions of the same deed but ruled that a trial-level inquiry was needed to resolve the issue. Rectification under Section 57 could not proceed based on allegations alone.<\/p>\n<p>The Court clarified that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner, even if the respondent does not file a reply. The petitioner must prove its case independently.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Court observed that the \u201cBADAL\u201d trademark was claimed to have been in use since 1945. Given this, a high level of scrutiny was necessary. The petitioner had not alleged non-use or similarity, and the coexistence of \u201cGHANGHOR BADAL\u201d had been acknowledged by the Registrar.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition, holding that the fraud allegations lacked strong evidentiary support. Disputed facts surrounding the assignments required a trial, which cannot be conducted in rectification proceedings. The long-standing legacy of the \u201cBADAL\u201d mark since 1945 further weighed against cancellation.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled_in_This_Case\"><\/span>Law Settled in This Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>This case reaffirms that rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act requires a strong evidentiary foundation. Allegations of fraud must be substantiated by credible, admissible evidence. Procedural anomalies or the respondent\u2019s silence do not shift the burden of proof. A trademark&#8217;s registration enjoys a presumption of validity and long-standing use (such as since 1945) cannot be interfered with lightly, absent proof of deceit or fabrication.<\/p>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:<\/b>\u00a0The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/b>, IP Adjutor &#8211; Patent and Trademark Attorney<br \/>\nEmail: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. &amp; Anr. Date of Order: 09 July 2025 Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150\/2021 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5395 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon\u2019ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna Introduction The case raises significant questions of trademark ownership, assignment validity, and the burden<\/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":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-6142","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142","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=6142"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6142\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6142"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6142"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6142"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}