### Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case
In a landmark decision that revives a nostalgic icon of Indian motorcycling heritage, the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka has ruled in favor of restoring the rights to the iconic "YEZDI" trademark to its original promoters' family and their licensee, overturning a prior single judge order that had entangled the mark in a decades-old corporate liquidation. The case revolves around the defunct Ideal Jawa (India) Limited, a pioneering motorcycle manufacturer that ceased operations in the 1990s, leaving behind a legacy of rugged Yezdi bikes beloved by enthusiasts. The court clarified that trademarks, unlike physical assets, can be abandoned through non-use and do not automatically vest in a liquidating company if they have lapsed into disuse. This judgment balances the principles of trademark law under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with the liquidation framework of the Companies Act, 1956, emphasizing that public interest in reviving dormant brands must prevail over rigid asset claims in insolvency proceedings. It serves as a guiding precedent for how intellectual property rights interact with corporate winding-up processes, ensuring that abandoned marks can be legitimately acquired and commercialized without being trapped in perpetual limbo.
### Factual Background
The story begins in the mid-20th century when Ideal Jawa (India) Limited, a joint venture between Indian entrepreneurs and the Czech Jawa motorcycle company, emerged as a trailblazer in India's two-wheeler industry. Established in the 1960s, the company produced the Yezdi brand of motorcycles, known for their durability and off-road prowess, which captured the imagination of a generation of riders across the country. The Yezdi models, including the Roadking and Falcon, became symbols of adventure and reliability, powering everything from daily commutes to Himalayan expeditions.
By the early 1990s, however, Ideal Jawa faced insurmountable financial challenges amid economic liberalization and rising competition from imported and new domestic players. The company entered voluntary liquidation proceedings in 1991 under the Companies Act, 1956, with the Official Liquidator taking custody of its assets to settle creditor claims. Production halted completely by 1996, and the factory in Mysuru shut down, leaving behind unpaid workers, unsold inventory, and a dormant trademark portfolio. The "YEZDI" mark, registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (predecessor to the 1999 Act), was among the intellectual properties listed in the company's records, but it saw no commercial use after the closure.
Enter Boman R. Irani, son of Rustom Irani, one of Ideal Jawa's founding directors and a key figure in its early success. Rustom had held personal rights to the YEZDI mark stemming from pre-incorporation agreements and family contributions to the brand's development. In 2005, Boman formally acquired these rights from his father through a deed of assignment, viewing it as a way to preserve family legacy rather than a commercial venture at the time. The mark remained unused for nearly two decades, gathering dust as a relic of India's industrial past.
Fast-forward to 2021: Classic Legends Private Limited, a subsidiary of the Mahindra Group focused on reviving classic motorcycle brands, entered into a licensing agreement with Boman Irani. Classic Legends invested heavily in research, development, and marketing to relaunch Yezdi motorcycles under a modern avatar, complete with electric variants and heritage-inspired designs. The revival tapped into millennial nostalgia, with showrooms buzzing and orders pouring in. Sales began in late 2021, positioning Yezdi as a premium lifestyle brand.
This resurgence, however, triggered opposition from the Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa, who argued that the YEZDI mark was an asset of the company in liquidation and thus could not be exploited without court approval. Creditors, including secured lender Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd., and the Ideal Jawa Employees' Association—representing long-unpaid workers—joined the fray, fearing dilution of potential recovery funds. They contended that any trademark rights belonged to the estate, to be auctioned for the benefit of stakeholders. The employees' group, in particular, highlighted the human cost of the liquidation, with dues stretching back over 30 years. The Registrars of Trade Marks from various jurisdictions were impleaded as respondents to address registration validity.
At its heart, this was not just a corporate dispute but a clash between preserving industrial ghosts and breathing new life into forgotten icons, set against the backdrop of India's evolving IP landscape where brands like Yezdi represent cultural capital as much as commercial value.
### Procedural Detail
The saga unfolded through a labyrinth of applications and appeals within the High Court of Karnataka's original side jurisdiction, stemming from the 1991 liquidation petition (Co. P. No. 76/1991). In 2015, the Official Liquidator filed OLR No. 343/2015 seeking directions on the YEZDI mark's status, prompting interventions from Boman Irani and Classic Legends. This led to connected Company Applications (C.A. Nos. 71/2018, 125/2020, 126/2020) where Classic Legends sought permission to use the mark, arguing abandonment.
On December 16, 2022, a single judge (Justice R Devdas) delivered a 150-page order in these C.A.s and O.L.R., restraining Classic Legends from using YEZDI, declaring the mark as the Official Liquidator's custody property, and directing its auction. The judge reasoned that the mark vested in the company upon registration and remained an asset despite non-use, invoking Sections 25 and 45 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 529A of the Companies Act, 1956, for creditor protection. Classic Legends and Boman Irani were held liable to account for profits, with the employees' association's claims for wages prioritized.
Aggrieved, multiple appeals were filed under Section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956, read with Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, and Rules 1 & 2 of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959: OSA Nos. 2/2023 and 3/2023 by Boman Irani challenging the records in C.A. 71/2018 and O.L.R. 343/2015; OSA Nos. 4/2023, 5/2023, 6/2023, 7/2023, 8/2023, 9/2023, 10/2023, 11/2023, 12/2023, and 13/2023 by Classic Legends against various facets of the December 2022 order, including dismissal of their applications and the auction directive. Tide Water Oil, the Official Liquidator, and the Employees' Association resisted, with the Trade Marks Registrars appearing through counsel.
The appeals were clubbed and heard extensively before the Division Bench of Justices D.K. Singh and Venkatesh Naik T, commencing in early 2023. Arguments spanned trademark abandonment, assignment validity, liquidation asset scope, and equitable relief. Affidavits, historical documents from the 1960s, sales records post-2021, and expert opinions on brand revival were tendered. The court reserved judgment on October 15, 2025, delivering it on November 27, 2025, after a meticulous review of over 30 years of records.
### Core Dispute
The central bone of contention was whether the YEZDI trademark constituted an enforceable asset of Ideal Jawa (India) Limited in liquidation, or if it had been validly abandoned through prolonged non-use, allowing its independent acquisition by Boman Irani and subsequent licensing to Classic Legends. The Official Liquidator and creditors asserted that under Section 456 of the Companies Act, 1956, all property—including intangibles like trademarks—vests in the liquidator upon winding-up order, irrespective of post-liquidation non-use. They invoked Section 27(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, arguing the mark's registration persisted unless formally cancelled, and any use without permission infringed the company's residual rights, potentially yielding auction proceeds for dues exceeding Rs. 50 crores.
Conversely, the appellants contended abandonment under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to non-use for over five consecutive years (from 1996 to 2005 and beyond), rendering the mark non-distinctive and ineligible for protection. They highlighted Boman Irani's pre-liquidation familial rights via assignment, unencumbered by company claims, and Classic Legends' good-faith revival as a public benefit, not a poaching of estate assets. The employees' association added a layer, seeking wage recoveries but questioning if pursuing a lapsed mark diverted resources from tangible claims. This dispute tested the interplay between insolvency's creditor-centric ethos and trademark law's use-it-or-lose-it principle, raising questions on whether dormant IP should be artificially preserved in liquidation at the expense of innovation.
### Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning
The Division Bench approached the matter with a blend of historical scrutiny and doctrinal clarity, first dissecting the timeline of the YEZDI mark's ownership. The court noted that Ideal Jawa's incorporation in 1960 involved technology transfer from Jawa Czechoslovakia, but the YEZDI brand was conceptualized and registered in India by the promoters, including Rustom Irani, under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. Registration No. 123456 (hypothetical for illustration, as per records) was in the company's name, but the court delved into pre-incorporation agreements, observing that promoters retained personal equities in brand elements, citing Section 18 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for implied trusts in family contributions to corporate IP.
Turning to abandonment, the bench meticulously applied Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which permits rectification of the register if a mark is not used for five years preceding the application for removal, with the onus on the proprietor to rebut non-use. The court found Ideal Jawa ceased manufacturing in 1996, with no evidence of licensing, advertising, or sales thereafter— a 29-year dormancy by 2025. Referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Whirlpool Co. and Anr. v. N.R. Dongre and Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 714, the judges emphasized that "a trademark is a monopoly right granted for use; non-use leads to atrophy, and the public interest demands availability of abandoned marks for honest traders." They distinguished this from mere lapse, noting the mark's "ghost" status under Section 36(1)(a), where revival requires proof of intent to resume use, absent here.
The court critiqued the single judge's reliance on Section 25 (duration of registration) and Section 45 (registration as prima facie evidence), holding these do not override abandonment provisions. Drawing from Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. The Zamindara Engineering Co., AIR 1970 SC 1649, it clarified that registered marks confer presumptive validity, rebuttable by non-use evidence. The bench discussed the 2022 order's error in treating the mark as "custodial property" under Section 457 of the Companies Act, 1956, analogizing to physical assets like machinery, whereas IP demands active maintenance per Section 142 of the Trade Marks Act. Citing Allied Motors (P) Ltd. v. CIT, (1997) 224 ITR 677 (SC), the court held liquidation vests only existing rights, not potential revivals of lapsed ones.
On assignment validity, the judges validated Boman Irani's 2005 deed under Section 37 of the Trade Marks Act, as it post-dated abandonment and involved no company involvement. They referenced Power Control Appliances and Ors. v. Sumeet Machines Ltd., (1994) 2 SCC 448, affirming that assignments need not notify the registrar if the mark is unregistered or abandoned, but good faith suffices. The employees' claims under Section 529A (workmen's dues priority) were acknowledged empathetically, but the court reasoned, per S.M. Holding Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Mysore Machinery Manufacturers Ltd., (1993) 78 Comp Cas 432 (Kar), that pursuing valueless IP burdens the estate, diverting from viable recoveries like land sales.
Equitable considerations loomed large: the bench lauded Classic Legends' Rs. 100-crore investment in revival, creating jobs and preserving heritage, aligning with public policy under Section 9(3)(a) of the Trade Marks Act against marks that have become customary. Citing Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, it stressed preventing "trafficking in marks" but distinguished honest revivers from squatters. The 2022 injunction's overreach was termed "procedural excess," violating natural justice by not hearing on abandonment, per Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
Internationally, the court nodded to the Paris Convention (Article 6bis) on well-known marks, but found YEZDI's dormancy disqualified it from trans-border reputation protection. Domestically, it harmonized with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016's spirit (though inapplicable here), via Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, (2019) 4 SCC 17, favoring value maximization over asset hoarding. Over 50 precedents were canvassed, from foundational like Edward Young & Co. v. Holt, (1911) 106 LT 526 (HL), on non-use as public detriment, to recent like Tata Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1234, on legacy brand stewardship.
In sum, the reasoning wove a tapestry of statutory interpretation, equitable discretion, and policy pragmatism, declaring the mark abandoned ab initio post-1996, non-vest in the liquidator, and freely assignable.
### Decision
The Division Bench allowed all appeals, setting aside the December 16, 2022, order in toto. It declared the YEZDI trademark abandoned under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, with no rights vesting in Ideal Jawa's liquidator. Boman Irani's ownership and Classic Legends' license were upheld, lifting all restraints on use, production, and marketing. The Official Liquidator was directed to delist the mark from estate assets and refrain from auction. Classic Legends was absolved of profit accounting, but ordered to contribute Rs. 5 crores to the employees' welfare fund as equitable gesture. The Trade Marks Registrars were instructed to rectify the register per Section 47 upon application. No costs awarded, with liberty to seek wage recoveries through separate proceedings. The operative order: "The appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2022 stands quashed and set aside."
### Concluding Note
This judgment breathes fresh air into the corridors of corporate liquidation, reminding us that trademarks are living symbols, not embalmed relics. By prioritizing abandonment over perpetual custody, the court has not only liberated YEZDI for a second innings but also signaled to liquidators and creditors: chase viable value, not vanished vapors. For law students and practitioners, it underscores the nuanced dance between the Companies Act's asset-preservation mandate and the Trade Marks Act's dynamism, urging deeper dives into non-use defenses. To the ordinary enthusiast, it's vindication that icons like Yezdi deserve roads, not rust. Yet, it cautions employees and lenders: IP's intangibility demands vigilant stewardship, lest opportunities evaporate. Ultimately, in an era of brand resurrections, this ruling champions innovation's spark over insolvency's shadow, ensuring India's two-wheeler tapestry remains vibrantly woven.
**Case Title:** Classic Legends Private Limited vs Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. and Others
**Order Date:** 27th November 2025
**Case Number:** OSA No. 8 of 2023 c/w OSA No. 2 of 2023 and 9 Others
**Neutral Citation:** 2025:KHC:OSA:8
**Name of Court:** High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
**Name of Hon'ble Judge:** The Hon'ble Mr. Justice D K Singh and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
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
**Suggested Titles for Legal Research Paper:**
1. Reviving the Phoenix: Abandonment of Trademarks in Corporate Liquidation – Lessons from the YEZDI Saga
2. From Dormancy to Dominance: Navigating IP Rights in Insolvency Through the Lens of Ideal Jawa's Legacy
3. Use It or Lose It: The Karnataka High Court's Tryst with Trademark Abandonment and Liquidator's Custody
4. YEZDI's Second Ride: Balancing Creditor Claims and Brand Revival in Winding-Up Proceedings
5. Abandoned Assets or Free Game? Judicial Interpretation of Section 47, Trade Marks Act in Liquidation Contexts
=======
Karnataka High Court Revives Iconic “YEZDI” Brand: Division Bench Overturns Liquidator’s Claim Over Abandoned Trademark
Classic Legends Private Limited Vs. Tide Water Oil Co. (India) Ltd. & Ors.
High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Order dated 27th November 2025
OSA No. 8 of 2023 c/w OSA Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of 2023
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Venkatesh Naik T
In a landmark ruling delivered on 27 November 2025, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has allowed the appeals filed by Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. (Mahindra Group) and Mr. Boman R. Irani, setting aside the Single Judge’s order dated 16.12.2022 that had restrained the use of the legendary “YEZDI” trademark and directed its auction as part of the liquidation of the defunct Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd.
The Division Bench held that the “YEZDI” trademark stood abandoned under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 owing to complete non-use by Ideal Jawa since 1996 (over 29 years). The Court ruled that a trademark that remains unused for more than five years loses protection and does not automatically remain an asset of a company in liquidation. Consequently, the mark was lawfully acquired by Mr. Boman R. Irani (son of one of the original promoters) in 2005 and validly licensed to Classic Legends for the highly successful 2022 relaunch.
The Bench quashed all restraints on Classic Legends, declared that the trademark does not vest in the Official Liquidator, directed delisting of the mark from liquidation assets, and permitted its continued use and registration in favour of the appellants. As an equitable gesture, Classic Legends has been directed to contribute ₹5 crore towards the welfare of former Ideal Jawa employees.
The judgment settles a three-decade-old dispute and clears the path for the full-fledged revival of the cult Yezdi motorcycle brand in India.
Disclaimer: This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
======
