Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 532
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
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Mr. Achyut Tewari and Mr. Krisha Baweja, Advocates
For the Respondents:Ms. Nidhi Raman & Mr. Om Ram, Advocates.
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.'
Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9, 18, 47, and 57 - Application for cancellation of Trade Mark No. 1799370 for 'JOLLY ROGER' due to non-use - The Petitioner claimed extensive use of the mark 'JOLLY ROGER' since 2010 and significant goodwill in the market - Respondent No.1 failed to defend and was proceeded against ex-parte - Court found Respondent No.1 had not used the mark in relation to Class 33 goods for over 5 years - Therefore, the Petitioner was deemed a 'person aggrieved' under Section 47 - The mark was ordered to be removed from the Register on grounds of non-use. (Paras 19, 22, 39)
(B) Legal standing - Concept of 'person aggrieved' established via precedential case law - The criteria outlined and relied upon in prior judgments confirming the applicant's rights to seek trademark cancellation based on non-use, underscoring the requirement for genuine use. (Paras 26, 28)
| 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
