Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd

Rectification of Trademark Register: The Threshold of Proof in Allegations of Fraud and Fabrication

Introduction:The case of Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. & Anr. raises significant questions of trademark ownership, assignment validity, and the burden of proof in rectification proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner sought cancellation of the trademark “BADAL” registered in favour of Hindustan Technocast, alleging fraud and impropriety in the chain of title. Delhi High Court adjudicated the matter and delivered the judgment on 9 July 2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2021.

Factual Background:The petitioner, M/s Sita Ram Iron Foundry, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Toka machines, is the registered proprietor of the trademark “GHANGHOR BADAL”, applied for in 2013 and registered in 2017 under Class 07. The petitioner has claimed continuous use since 2002. The impugned mark “BADAL”, originally registered in 2000 by M/s Jodh Singh Sehmbey and Sons, was later claimed to have been assigned to Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey in 2006, and subsequently to Hindustan Technocast in 2011. The petitioner alleged that these assignments were fraudulent and defective, and that the respondent had wrongly obtained the registration.

Procedural Background:The present rectification petition was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and was transferred to the Delhi High Court following the abolition of IPAB via the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021. The petition was filed under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act. It arose as a consequence of proceedings in a suit for trademark infringement filed by the respondent in the District Court, Jind, Haryana, where the petitioner is defendant no. 2. The Jind Court had stayed proceedings under Section 124 of the Act to await the outcome of the rectification petition.

Core Dispute:The core issue was whether the respondent’s trademark “BADAL” had been fraudulently assigned and registered in its name, thereby warranting rectification of the Register? The petitioner challenged the authenticity of two assignment deeds – one dated 25 May 2006 (from the original firm to Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey) and another dated 12 April 2011 (from Iqbal Singh to Hindustan Technocast). The petitioner alleged that the first assignment was self-dealing, and the second was riddled with irregularities, including multiple conflicting versions.

Discussion on Judgments:The petitioner relied on Anshul Vaish v. Hari Om, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 664, where fabricated user documents were found to undermine the respondent’s claim. The Court, in that case, held the user documents to be forged as they referred to a TIN number issued after the alleged use date.

The petitioner also cited Gandhi Scientific Co. v. Gulshan Kumar, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 820, and Khushi Ram Behari Lal v. Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6702, to argue that obvious manipulation in assignment records could render registrations void ab initio.

In contrast, the Court relied heavily on Safari International v. Subhash Gupta, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1767, where the Division Bench held that fraud must be pleaded with specificity and proved with cogent evidence. Mere allegations or suspicion do not suffice to cancel a registered mark.

Further, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in A.C. Ananthaswamy v. Boraiah, (2004) 8 SCC 588, reiterating that allegations of fraud require high standards of proof—akin to criminal trials.

The Court also relied on Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696, and Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, to emphasize that a plaintiff cannot succeed merely because the defendant did not file a written statement. The burden remains on the petitioner to prove its own case.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:Court held that no conclusive evidence was brought on record by the petitioner to prove that the assignment deeds were fraudulent. The petitioner’s contention that Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey executed an assignment deed in both capacities—as assignor and assignee—was found insufficient, as no partner or member of the HUF had contested this claim. The Registrar had also accepted Form TM-16 and TM-24 filed in support of this ownership transfer.

On the second assignment to Hindustan Technocast, the Court noted that although two versions of the same deed were placed on record, it required trial-level inquiry to determine which was genuine. Rectification under Section 57 could not be based on mere allegations without trial.

The Court clarified that even in cases where the respondent did not file a reply, the burden still lies with the petitioner to prove the pleaded case with substantive evidence. The Court underscored that the petitioner must succeed on the strength of its own case, not by highlighting deficiencies in the respondent’s position.

Further, the Court observed that the “BADAL” trademark was claimed to have been in use since 1945. Given such long-standing use, a high degree of scrutiny was necessary before cancelling it. The petitioner neither alleged non-use nor similarity, and the Registrar had already acknowledged the coexistence by granting registration to “GHANGHOR BADAL”.

Final Decision:The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition, holding that the allegations of fraud were not substantiated by evidence strong enough to warrant cancellation of a trademark with a legacy dating back to 1945. The Court concluded that disputed facts around assignment could only be decided through trial, and such a rectification proceeding was not the appropriate forum for that purpose.

Law Settled in This Case:This case reaffirms the legal position that rectification of the Register under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act requires a strong evidentiary foundation, particularly when allegations of fraud are made. Mere procedural anomalies or the absence of opposition from the respondent do not relieve the petitioner of the burden of proof. The judgment strengthens the principle that registration enjoys a presumption of validity and can only be rebutted through cogent, credible, and admissible evidence. Furthermore, it affirms that long-standing use of a mark (here since 1945) cannot be lightly interfered with, especially in the absence of proof of deceit or fabrication.

Case Title: Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. & Anr.:Date of Order: 09 July 2025:Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2021:Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5395:Name of Court: High Court of Delhi :Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi