Brief Introductory Head Note
The case of Ganraj Enterprises v. Landmark Crafts Ltd. & Anr., decided by the Delhi High Court on 02 December 2025 by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, concerns a trademark rectification appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The central issue revolves around the word mark “HP” registered by Landmark Crafts Ltd. (earlier Landmark Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.) and the competing claim of use and adoption of the mark “HP+” by Ganraj Enterprises.
The dispute required the Court to examine whether the appellant had the legal right to seek rectification of the respondent’s trademark, whether the respondent’s registration was obtained through misrepresentation, whether territorial limitations in one registration automatically extend to another associated registration, and whether the appellant was genuinely a “person aggrieved” under trademark law.
---
Factual Background
The story of the trademark “HP” begins in 1995 when Mr. Pankaj Lidoo, the director of Landmark Crafts Ltd., adopted the word mark HP for self-drilling screws and blind rivets. He initially carried on business through his proprietorship “Landmark Engineers”. In 2002, this business was converted into “Landmark Fasteners Pvt. Ltd.”
The company filed a trademark application for the word mark “HP” in 2007 under TM No. 1566805 in Class 6, claiming user since 15 December 1995. Registration was granted in 2011, but with a territorial restriction limiting the sale of goods to Uttar Pradesh only.
Another application for the same word mark “HP” was filed in 2014 under TM No. 2848372, which was later registered in 2018. Unlike the earlier mark, this second registration had no territorial limitation, giving the proprietor pan-India protection.
Both trademarks were later assigned to Landmark Crafts Ltd. by assignment deeds dated 05 August 2013 and 29 April 2019. The change was recorded by the Registrar of Trade Marks in 2017 and 2019 respectively.
During this period, Ganraj Enterprises adopted the logo mark “HP+” for similar goods in Class 6 and filed four trademark applications between December 2014 and December 2015. The Registrar of Trade Marks cited the respondent’s earlier registrations as conflicting marks. Landmark Crafts opposed all four of the appellant’s applications. As three of these applications were abandoned and one refused, the appellant initiated rectification proceedings to cancel the respondent’s trademark TM No. 1566805.
---
Procedural Detail
Ganraj Enterprises filed a rectification petition seeking cancellation of the respondent’s trademark “HP” registered under TM No. 1566805, claiming that it was deceptively similar to their own “HP+” logo mark and that the respondent's claim of user since 1995 was false.
On 10 November 2022, the Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the rectification application, holding that Landmark Crafts Ltd. was the prior adopter and user of the mark “HP”, that the appellant was not a “person aggrieved”, and that no valid grounds for rectification had been established.
The appellant challenged this order before the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.
During the pendency of the appeal, three of the appellant’s own trademark applications had already been abandoned and the fourth had been refused.
---
Core Dispute
The core dispute before the Court was whether the registration of the word mark “HP” under TM No. 1566805 should be cancelled.
Several related questions arose:
Whether the appellant, claiming to use the mark “HP+” since 2014, had the locus standi of a “person aggrieved” to seek rectification.
Whether the respondent’s claim of user since 1995 was false, constituting misrepresentation.
Whether the territorial restriction placed on TM No. 1566805 should automatically apply to TM No. 2848372 by virtue of Section 16 of the Trade Marks Act (association of trademarks).
Whether the respondent could legally prevent the appellant from using “HP+” in the State of Maharashtra given that TM No. 1566805 was territorially limited to Uttar Pradesh.
Whether the Registrar’s findings regarding the appellant’s proof of use were correct.
---
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by the Court
The Court began by examining the foundation of the trademark rights claimed by Landmark Crafts. TM No. 1566805, though limited to Uttar Pradesh, was legally valid. TM No. 2848372 enjoyed nationwide protection without territorial restriction. The appellant’s challenge to the first registration could not automatically affect the second.
The Court addressed the appellant’s allegation that the respondent’s user claim since 1995 was fraudulent. However, the appellant itself had stated in written arguments that the issue of user since 1995 was being contested in a parallel commercial suit and should not be adjudicated in this rectification appeal. The Court accepted this concession and declined to rule on the factual claim relating to user from 1995.
Thereafter, the Court examined whether the territorial restriction of one registration could be applied to another registration under Section 16 of the Trade Marks Act dealing with association of trademarks. Relying on Foodlink F&B Holdings India (P) Ltd v. Wow Momo Foods (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4719, the Court held that the association of trademarks does not mean that the limitations or disclaimers applicable to one registration automatically apply to another. Each registration stands independently unless the Registrar explicitly records a limitation in the certificate. The Court also cited judgments such as Skol Breweries Ltd. v. Som Distilleries & Breweries Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1750 and Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Poma-Ex Products, MANU/MH/1661/2017, reiterating that conditions in one registration cannot be imported into another.
Turning to locus standi, the Court clarified that a person is “aggrieved” if their legitimate use of a trademark is obstructed by an existing registration. Since the respondent had opposed all four of the appellant’s applications and had filed a commercial suit seeking to restrain their use of “HP+”, the appellant indeed had the locus to maintain a rectification petition.
However, having locus standi does not automatically justify rectification. The burden to prove grounds for cancellation is separate.
The Court then examined the appellant’s evidence of prior use. The appellant claimed user since 2014, but many invoices produced showed the term “HP+” inserted later by handwriting. The Registrar was justified in doubting such material, and the Court found no error in this finding. Even if the appellant’s use from 2014 was accepted, the respondent had already placed on record invoices showing use of “HP” since 2006, and even in Maharashtra since 2010. Moreover, TM No. 2848372 granted pan-India protection from 2014 onwards, predating the appellant’s adoption of the mark “HP+”.
The appellant argued that due to the territorial restriction in TM No. 1566805, the respondent could not market products under “HP” in Maharashtra. The Court rejected this by explaining an important legal distinction: a territorial restriction in a trademark registration does not prevent the proprietor from conducting business outside the restricted zone; it only affects their ability to sue for infringement in other territories. The proprietor may still rely on the common-law remedy of passing off in other regions.
Thus, the Court held that the respondent was not barred from using the mark “HP” in Maharashtra, and the appellant’s argument had no legal basis.
The Court concluded that none of the grounds raised for rectification were valid. The concurrent findings of the Registrar were correct, and the registration deserved protection.
---
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Registrar’s order dated 10 November 2022. TM No. 1566805 for the word mark “HP” remains valid. The Court also clarified that the rectification relating to TM No. 2848372 would be decided independently in separate pending proceedings.
All pending applications in the appeal were disposed of.
---
Concluding Note
This judgment offers valuable clarity on the functioning of trademark law, especially on issues related to territorial limitations, association of trademarks under Section 16, determination of prior user, and the standard for being considered a “person aggrieved”. The Court emphasized that limitations imposed on one trademark cannot be mechanically extended to another trademark unless explicitly stated. It clarified the difference between territorial restriction for infringement purposes and the right to sell goods across India. It also reaffirmed that mere assertion of user without reliable documentary proof is insufficient in trademark disputes.
The decision reinforces the principle that rectification of a registered trademark is a serious remedy that cannot be granted lightly. It requires clear, credible, and well-substantiated grounds. Where a party fails to disprove the established user of the registered proprietor and cannot show genuine injury or deceptive similarity, the registered mark deserves protection. The judgment is therefore a significant contribution to trademark jurisprudence, especially in cases involving competing adoption of short alphabetical marks.
---
Case Details
Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises Vs. Landmark Crafts Ltd. & Anr.
Order Date: 02 December 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:____ (As reflected on the order header)
Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
---
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 Publication
1. Understanding Territorial Limits and Trademark Association: A Study of Ganraj Enterprises v. Landmark Crafts Ltd.
2. Rectification of Trademarks and the Standard of Proof: A Detailed Analysis of the HP–HP+ Dispute
3. Prior User vs. Subsequent Adoption: Legal Lessons from the Delhi High Court’s HP Trademark Judgment
4. The Concept of “Person Aggrieved” Under Indian Trademark Law: An Examination Through Recent Case Law
5. Trademark Limitations, Registration Rights, and Passing Off: Insights from a 2025 Delhi High Court Decision
====
Delhi High Court Upholds Validity of “HP” Trademark in Rectification Appeal Filed by Ganraj Enterprises
In Ganraj Enterprises v. Landmark Crafts Ltd. & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022, decided on 02 December 2025 by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the High Court of Delhi, the Court dismissed a rectification appeal seeking cancellation of the respondent’s trademark “HP” registered under TM No. 1566805. The appellant, Ganraj Enterprises, argued that the respondent’s claim of prior user was false and that the territorial limitation in the respondent’s registration restricted use of the mark outside Uttar Pradesh.
The Court noted that the respondent had placed credible material showing long-standing use of the mark “HP” since the mid-1990s and certainly from 2006 onwards. The appellant, on the other hand, failed to produce reliable evidence of its own claimed use of the mark “HP+” since 2014, with many invoices appearing handwritten or modified later. The Court held that the Registrar was justified in dismissing the rectification petition on the ground that the appellant had not established any valid basis for cancellation.
The Court also clarified that the territorial restriction attached to one trademark registration cannot automatically apply to another, even if both registrations are associated under Section 16 of the Trade Marks Act. Each registration stands independently. The presence of the respondent’s second registration, TM No. 2848372, which has nationwide protection, further weighed against the appellant’s claim.
Finding no infirmity in the Registrar’s reasoning, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the respondent’s trademark rights.
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.
=====
