$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22^nd January, 2026 + C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025 YASHASVI HAVELIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anshuman Upadhyay, Mr. Naseem Sheikh, Mr. Rahul Singh and Ms.

Shubhangi Shaswat, Advocates.

versus PRABHTEJ BHATIA AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: None for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr. Om Ram and Mr. Arnav Mittal, Advocates for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) I.A.17044/2025 (Exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025 & I.A. 17043/2025

3. This rectification petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) for removal of entry in respect of trademark ‘BANDOOK’ under Registration No.3762319 in Class 33 in respect of alcoholic beverages, excluding beer, in the name of Sh. Prabhtej Bhatia, trading in the name of Raipur Bottling Company/Respondent No.1.

4. To the extent necessary, case of the Petitioner is that it is actively engaged in the business of conceptualizing, developing and marketing a range of beverages including beer and non-alcoholic drinks. Petitioner adopted the trademark ‘BANDOOK’ as an arbitrary and distinctive word intended to function as the core identifier for its beverage line. Petitioner secured registration of the mark in Class 32 bearing Registration No.6240831 with effect from 30.12.2023.

5. It is averred that prior to filing the present petition, Petitioner conducted a public search on the portal of Trade Marks Registry and discovered that the impugned mark ‘BANDOOK’ was registered under Class 33 in favour of Respondent No.1. The discovery was made when Petitioner attempted to expand its portfolio and filed its application for registration of mark ‘BANDOOK’ in Class 33 bearing Application No.7076325.

6. It is averred that as per Petitioner’s information and belief, Respondent No.1 has never used the impugned mark ‘BANDOOK’ in the course of trade in relation to goods for which it is registered and does not have any genuine intent to use it, which is evident from the fact that for a period exceeding five years, the mark has not been put to use for goods in Class 33, which is contrary to letter and spirit of the 1999 Act and therefore, is liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks under Section

47(1)(b) of the 1999 Act.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is a Director/Partner in various business entities engaged in manufacturing, selling and developing sale of alcoholic beverages including beer and also has a line of non-alcoholic beverages, as a part of its business profile. Petitioner independently conceived and adopted trademark ‘BANDOOK’ as a distinctive and arbitrary mark and bonafidely applied for registration in Class 33 vide Application No.7076325 on 21.06.2025 in respect of alcoholic beverages, excluding beer. Petitioner already holds registration for the said mark in Class 32 for beer and non-alcoholic beverages. The commercial operations under the mark are at an advanced preparatory stage and manufacturing is proposed to commence on completion of requisite statutory licensing and regulatory formalities.

8. It is submitted that an objection was raised by the Registrar earlier under Section 9(1)(a) of the 1999 Act and upon receipt of the reply from the Petitioner that the mark does not describe the goods and instead distinguishes Petitioner’s goods from others in the market, objection was waived and registration was granted in Class 32. No conflicting mark was cited and no third party opposition was filed. The only impediment, therefore, in registration in Class 33 is the impugned mark of Respondent No.1, which deserves to be removed owing to ‘non-use’ for over 5 years.

9. It is submitted that Petitioner is entitled to file this petition as ‘person aggrieved’ since business interest of the Petitioner would be su