Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Allied Blenders And Distillers Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Kulbir Singh & Anr. – Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 191 of 2024 with I.A. 40178 of 2024 & I.A.
Decided On : 22-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background details on trademark registration (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments on non-use and prior rights (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. status of respondent no.1's lack of response (Para 20 , 21) |
| 4. court's analysis and interpretation of non-use provisions (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 5. findings on respondent no.1's non-use and the petitioner's standing (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. final order for removal of impugned mark (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
(‘Impugned Mark’) in the name of Respondent No.1, and for the rectification of the Trade Marks Register under Rule 7 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The Petitioner owns and operates a well-established business, inter alia, of manufacturing and marketing Indian Made Foreign Liquor and other related goods. The Petitioner’s merchandise is sold globally under many distinctive Trade Marks and caters to various consumer segments.
3. Over the past several decades, the Petitioner introduced multiple well- known brands, and many of them have become popular names in the country such as ‘OFFICER’S CHOICE’, ‘OFFICER’S CHOICE BLUE’, ‘CLASS VODKA’, ‘CLASS 21’, ‘CALYPSO’, ‘SUMO’, ‘1000 GUINEAS’, ‘LORD & MASTER’, ‘KYRON’, ‘STERLING RESERVE’, among others.
4. The Petitioner’s Trade Mark relevant to the present controversy is ‘JOLLY ROGER’. The Petitioner’s predecessors had adopted the said mark in the year 1991. The Petitioner’s group entity BDA Private Limited had applied for the registration of the Composite Mark ‘JOLLY ROGER’ in the year 2006, which was granted under Registration No. 1487257 in Class 33. After the merger of the alcohol beverages business with the Petitioner, the said Mark stands registered in the Petitioner’s name. The Petitioner has extensively been using the Mark ‘JOLLY ROGER’ since the year 2010 and the goods bearing the said Mark are sold all around the country by the Petitioner.
5. The Petitioner claims that the Mark ‘JOLLY ROGER’ has acquired significant goodwill and reputation in the alcoholic beverages market in India. The Petitioner’s website (www.abdindia.com) provides information on all their products bearing the Mark ‘JOLLY ROGGER’ which has led to further enhancement of the awareness and recognition of the Petitioner’sproducts under the said Mark. The Petitioner further claims that it has made significant financial investment to promote the sale of its products bearing the Mark ‘JOLLY ROGER’.
6. The Sales Figures of the Petitioner’s products bearing the ‘JOLLY ROGER’ mark are as under:
| JOLLY ROGER - Sales Details | |
| Year | Total (in units) |
| 2023-24 | 2,15,562 |
| 2022-23 | 3,21,748 |
| 2021-22 | 2,10,856 |
| 2020-21 | 1,24,989 |
| 2019-20 | 68,380 |
| 2018-19 | 1,09,059 |
| 2017-18 | 2,32,525 |
| 2016-17 | 2,67,379 |
| 2015-16 | 3,29,553 |
| 2014-15 | 2,13,111 |
| 2013-14 | 1,94,315 |
| 2012-13 | 1,80,566 |
| 2011-12 | 2,04,062 |
| 2010-11 | 1,47,543 |
7. The Impugned Mark was registered under the Registration No. 1799370 in Class 33, in the name of Respondent No.1, having address at C/o Roger Industries Limited, Agra-Mathura Road, Artoni, Agra, Uttar Pradesh – 282007. The Application for the registration of the Impugned Mark was filed on 24.03.2009 and the Impugned Mark is valid till 24.03.2029.
8. On 15.07.2024, the Petitioner received a Cease-and-Desist Notice issued by Roger Industries Limited through its Director, i.e., Respondent No.1, calling upon the Petitioner to cease and desist from its businessoperations using the Mark ‘JOLLY ROGER’. The Petitioner sent a detailed Reply dated 25.07.2024 to the Petitioner and subsequently, the present Petition was filed before this Court.
9. Vide order dated 01.10.2024, this Court directed that Notice be issued to Respondent No.1 through all modes and grant
A registered trade mark can be removed for non-use if it has not been used for a continuous period of at least five years by the proprietor, affirming the legal concept of 'person aggrieved.'
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark from the register of trade marks must establish a fresh cause of action for rectific....
The impugned mark can be removed from the register for non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, and a 'person aggrieved' has the standing to seek such removal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 47 and Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to establish non-use, bad faith registration, and habitual squatting of w....
Prior global user qualifies as 'person aggrieved' under Section 47 for cancelling unused registered mark, as it precludes own registration; 'business expansion' not special circumstances excusing non....
Registration of a trademark may be cancelled if it is found to be deceptively similar to a prior registered mark and has not been used for five years, reflecting both private and public interest.
A well-known trademark is entitled to protection against identical and similar marks, as well as dissimilar goods, especially when registration is obtained in bad faith.
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
