Back
rejects ASR Market Ventures' plea to cancel Fitship's FITFEAST mark
The has dismissed a filed by —the company behind the popular FITPASS platform—seeking cancellation of 's registered trademark 'FITFEAST' for its protein snack range. Justice Jyoti Singh also refused an in the connected suit, holding that ASR failed to establish in the FITFEAST mark.
The Dispute: Who Owns 'FITFEAST'?
ASR Market Ventures, which operates a comprehensive fitness and wellness platform under the FITPASS brand, claimed it coined the mark 'FITFEAST' in for its nutrition and healthy food-related services, including customized meal plans, nutritionist consultations, and wellness tracking tools. The company alleged that dishonestly adopted a mark for its high-protein snacks in , despite being aware of ASR's reputation.
Fitship, on the other hand, contended that its founder Aditya Poddar independently conceived the mark after his personal health transformation, and that before adopting it, the company conducted thorough —including searches on the , Google Trends, and WHOIS databases—which revealed no prior use or registration of FITFEAST. Fitship secured registration of the mark in Class 30 on a '' basis in .
Arguments from Both Sides
ASR argued that it was the of the FITFEAST mark, having used it since , and that Fitship's mark was and . It contended that the services offered under FITFEAST and Fitship's snack products were , leading to among consumers. ASR invoked , arguing that the registration was liable to be prevented by the law of .
Fitship countered that ASR had never used FITFEAST as a standalone trademark. Instead, the mark appeared only as one of several services bundled under the FITPASS umbrella, such as FITCOACH, FITHEAL, and FITSHOP. Fitship pointed out that ASR could not produce a single invoice showing independent use of FITFEAST, nor could it bifurcate revenues or advertising expenses attributable solely to that mark. Fitship also highlighted that ASR waited until —eight years after alleged first use—to file trademark applications for FITFEAST, whereas Fitship had already built substantial in the mark since .
Court's Analysis: No
Justice Singh examined the documents placed on record by ASR and found that
"the documents demonstrate that ASR has been consistently advertising, selling and promoting its services under the
FITPASS and reference to the mark FITFEAST is scant and not in the manner of
."
The court noted that ASR's services under FITFEAST were never offered as standalone services and were always bundled with FITPASS subscription plans.
"It is unfathomable that ASR is unable to produce a single invoice under FITFEAST, demonstrating use as a trademark if it has been offering services under the said mark allegedly from the year
,"
the court observed.
Since ASR's mark was not registered and did not qualify as an '' under Section 11(1), the could not succeed on . On the claim under Section 11(3), the court held that ASR failed to establish the essential ingredient of in the FITFEAST mark. Relying on the from and subsequent precedents, the court concluded that without , a action cannot be maintained.
by Fitship
The court also rejected ASR's allegation of
, noting that Fitship had conducted comprehensive
before adopting the mark.
"Fitship has detailed reasons for adopting the mark for its protein rich snacks,"
the judgment stated, referring to the founder's personal journey. The court found that the search results from the
, WHOIS, and Google Trends up to
showed no significant use of FITFEAST by any third party.
Key Observations from the Judgment
In a significant passage, the court observed:
"The documents demonstrate that ASR has been consistently advertising, selling and promoting its services under the
FITPASS and reference to the mark FITFEAST is scant and not in the manner of
."
On the failure to produce invoices, the court remarked:
"It is unfathomable that ASR is unable to produce a single invoice under FITFEAST, demonstrating use as a trademark if it has been offering services under the said mark allegedly from the year
."
Addressing the delay in seeking registration, the court noted:
"If the mark was genuinely adopted and used by ASR in
and was continuously used, why an application for registration was not filed for eight long years."
Final Decision and Implications
Justice Jyoti Singh dismissed the () and also refused the application () in the connected suit. The court clarified that its findings would not bind the final adjudication of the suit, which will proceed before the Joint Registrar.
The ruling underscores the importance of establishing genuine trademark use and when challenging a registered mark through a claim. It also highlights that a mere claim of prior adoption, without concrete evidence of use as a source identifier, may not suffice to cancel a later registration that was obtained after .
