SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Del) 333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Innocenti Sa - Appellant
Versus
Examiner Of Trademarks & Anr. - Respondents
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 76 of 2024, I.A. 45128 of 2024&I.A., 45132 of 2024, W.P.(C)-IPD 54 of 2025, CM 223 of 2025 & CM 224 of 2025, W.P.(C)-IPD 56 of 2025, CM 232 of 2025 & CM 233 of 2025
Decided On : 31-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Dr. Sheetal Vohra, Mr. Rahul Dwivedi, Mr. Sridharan Rajan Ramkumar, Ms. Annanya Mehan, Mr. Ashutosh & Ms. Sakshi Rathore, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC along with Mr. Mayank Sansanwal & Mr. Om Ram, Advocates, Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Apoorva Maheshwari, Ms. Bhavya Gupta & Ms. Priyanshi Bhageria, Advocates

The Registrar must consistently apply relevant laws in trademark registration, ensuring procedural compliance, and cannot ignore third-party rights under the Trade Marks Act, allowing for comprehensive reviews when errors are apparent.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 19 - Application for registration refused - The Appellant's mark ‘LAMBRETTA’ was opposed by the Respondent based on prior rights - Impugned order was found to be arbitrary with inconsistent stands taken by the Registrar - The judgment highlights the Registrar's duty to apply mind to trademark applications under Section 11 of the Act - Appeal allowed directing the Registrar to consider all relevant material and issue a consolidated order regarding the mark registrations. (Paras 56 and 57)

(B) Jurisdiction - The Court noted that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory remedies provided under the Trade Marks Act. (Paras 37 and 40)

Facts of the case:
The case comprised of appeals and Writ Petitions involving the mark ‘LAMBRETTA’ filed by Innocenti and opposed by August Ventures. August Ventures held previous registrations which were not considered appropriately during the acceptance stages leading to confusion and manipulation of procedural compliance.

Findings of Court:
The Registrar failed to maintain the due process leading to conflicting judgments regarding the same trademark applications. The Court mandated a fresh comprehensive review by the Registrar.

Issues: Whether the Registrar had misapplied the provisions of the Trade Marks Act while adjudicating on identical applications and the role of the writ jurisdiction in such matters.

Ratio Decidendi: The ruling underscored the need for consistency in application of law by the Registrar when considering trademark registrations and established that the exercise of discretion under Section 19 is not a mere administrative act but requires thorough application of mind to statutory and situational factors.

Result: W.P.

(C)-IPD 54/2025 and W.P.

(C)-IPD 56/2025 dismissed; Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case filings and parties involved (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. historical facts regarding trade mark ownership (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. arguments presented by both parties regarding trade mark applications (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. court's analysis of legal provisions on trade mark acceptance (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. final ruling on the trade mark applications and direction for further proceedings (Para 56 , 57 , 58)

JUDGEMENT :

TEJAS KARIA, J.

1. By way of this common Judgement, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 76/2024 (“Appeal”), W.P.(C)-IPD 54/2025 (“WP 54”) and W.P.(C)-IPD 56/2025 (“WP 56”) are decided in terms of the agreement between the Parties as recorded in order dated 16.10.2025.

2. The Appeal has been filed by Innocenti SA (“Innocenti”) against the order dated 28.05.2024 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing the registration of the Trade Mark,

3. WP 54 has been filed by August Ventures Private Limited (“August Ventures”) seeking writ of mandamus against the Registrar of Trade Marks to consider and decide the Applications filed by August Ventures under Section 19 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) in Trade Mark Application Nos. 5628002 and 5628003 filed by Innocenti.

4. WP 56 has been filed by August Ventures seeking writ of certiorari quashing the Acceptance Orders dated 30.05.2025 and 23.06.2025 (“Acceptance Orders”) and consequent advertisements dated 09.06.2025 for Application No. 5628002 and dated 07.07.2025 for Application No. 5628003 filed by Innocenti in the Trade Marks Journal. It is also prayed to direct the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”) to bear in mind and consider the registrations and applications of August Ventures while conducting examination under Rule 33 and 34 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) and before granting acceptance and directing advertisement under Section 20 of the Act, whenever any applications consisting of the word, ‘LAMBRETTA’ are filed or come up for examination.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

5. In the year 1932, Innocenti Societa Generale per 1’Industria Metallurgica e Meccanica SPA (“Innocenti SG”) was incorporated in Italy, and engaged in the business of designing, making, and selling motor scooters and parts thereof under the Name Mark, ‘LAMBRETTA’ and, thereafter, on 18.11.1948, Innocenti SG obtained Italian Trade Mark Registration No. 83425 for the word, ‘LAMBRETTA’ for vehicles in Class 12, which was renewed periodically. On 02.06.1949, Innocenti SG obtained Indian Trade Mark registration of the Mark, ‘LAMBRETTA’ for motor vehicles in Class 12.

6. On 16.06.1972, by a tripartite agreement amongst (i) Government of India acting through the President of India; (ii) Automobile Products of India Limited (“API”) and (iii) Innocenti SG (which had become Gepar SPA in 1972) together with Innocenti Lambretta S.P.A. (which merged with Gepar SPA on 29.12.1972), Government of India purchased machinery, know-how, and rights in the Trade Mark, ‘LAMBRETTA’.

7. The President of India assigned the aforesaid assets and rights to Scooters India Limited (“SIL”) in 1972, which became the proprietor of the Trade Mark, ‘LAMBRETTA’.

8. During the years 1992 to 2000, SIL was declared sick by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (“BIFR”) in terms of the provisions of Section 3(1)(0) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Subsequently, SIL was declared no longer sick in the year 2000.

9. In 2007, Brandconcern B.V. (“Brandconcern”) filed Trade Marks Applications attempting to illegally usurp the brand, ‘LAMBRETTA’.

10. During the years 2010 to 2015, SIL, was again declared sick and put under BIFR until the year 2015 and the use of the Trade Mark, ‘LAMBRETT’ continued worldwide through the licensees, and such use by the licensees belonged to SIL.

11. In the year 2015, Heritage Licensing SA changed its name to Innocenti SA.

12. On 05.09.2022, August Ventures

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top