Brief Introductory Head Note and Summary of Case
The Court in this matter considered whether a registered trademark can continue to stay on the official Register when the owner of that mark has never genuinely used it in the real market. The Petitioner, a well-known international whiskey maker, said that the Respondent got the registration of the mark “BLUE SPOT” in India, but after registration, there has been no real use of this mark on any goods, anywhere, for years. When the Respondent did not come to Court to deny or defend their registration, the Court accepted the evidence of non-use and ordered that the registration be removed under the law.
Factual Background
The Petitioner company, Irish Distillers International Limited, belongs to the worldwide liquor group Pernod Ricard. Its business is to make and sell premium Irish single pot-still whiskey. Its brand family includes GREEN SPOT, YELLOW SPOT, RED SPOT, and also BLUE SPOT. The history of this “SPOT” family goes back to the year 1900 in Ireland, when color-spots were used to show how long barrels of whiskey were aged. The BLUE SPOT whiskey was first launched in the 1900s, later paused, and was relaunched to consumers again in 2020. The Petitioner said that its whiskeys are available in India through a third-party seller and that it holds trademark registrations for this family of marks in several countries, including its earliest GREEN SPOT registration in 1948 in Ireland and BLUE SPOT registration since 2020 in Ireland.
The Petitioner also wanted to register BLUE SPOT in India and filed Application No. 5866619 (Class 33) on 27.03.2023. However, the Trade Marks Registry objected, saying there was a conflicting earlier Indian mark, Registration No. 3999818, which already existed on the Register. This conflicting registration was owned by Respondent No.1, i.e., Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd. This Respondent had filed their application in November 2018, claimed use since 14.11.2018, and got registration on 14.05.2019.
After learning this, the Petitioner hired an independent investigator in October 2024. The investigation showed that the Respondent did not exist at their public addresses, no BLUE SPOT product of the Respondent was found in the market, and when the investigator called the official mobile number on record, a person named Mr. Satpal Tanwar informed that Respondent No.1 never used the mark BLUE SPOT. Because the Petitioner’s application was stalled and not advertised, it filed this Rectification Petition on 28.01.2025 before the Court.
Procedural Details
The Petition was filed in the High Court of Delhi under Section 47 and Section 57 of the law, which is the statute Trademarks Act 1999, asking that the Respondent’s registration for “BLUE SPOT” be removed. The Petition was numbered C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 77/2025. The Court tried to serve notice to the Respondent by speed post, email, and WhatsApp, with proof filed in an affidavit. Speed post could not be delivered, but service succeeded on email and WhatsApp. When Respondent No.1 still did not appear, the Court passed an ex-parte order on 17.07.2025 and proceeded to decide the case based on the petitioner’s verified pleadings and documents.
Core Dispute
The main question was simple yet important: Whether a trademark that has never been genuinely used in the real market, anywhere, for more than five years after it is entered in the Register, should continue to remain registered, blocking the legitimate user from protecting their brand.
Court’s Reasoning, Discussion and Citation Analysis
The Court relied on the integrity-protecting purpose of Section 47 of the Trademarks Act 1999. This provision exists to stop “hoarding” (keeping trademarks without using them), because a trademark law is meant for marks used in real trade, not stored like trophies. The Court took guidance from the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Rong Thai International Group Co. Ltd. v. Ena Footwear Pvt. Ltd., reported as 2024 SCC OnLine Del 66
Irish Distillers International …
, where it was held that removal is allowed when a registered mark is not genuinely and honestly used in trade for a continuous period of five years, and the burden to prove non-use lies on the person asking for removal. In the same judgment, the Court analysed how the non-use period must start from the date the mark is actually entered in the official Register, not the date of application, and the end point is three months before filing the removal case. The law also gives a “grace period” of five years from entry in Register when non-use challenges cannot succeed, but after five years, any mark must show real use to survive.
The Court also considered the decision in DORCO Co. Ltd. v. Durga Enterprises, reported as 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1484
Irish Distillers International …
, which in turn discussed the earlier principle from the now-defunct tribunal, the IPAB, in Shell Transource Limited v. Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29. That case clarified a very important but easy-to-understand rule: When non-use is pleaded, the owner must specifically deny it; if they do not, the allegation is treated as admitted.
Applying these legal principles, the Court found that the Respondent’s registration was entered in the Register in May 2019, and the Rectification Petition was filed in January 2025, crossing a period of more than five years and three months, with no evidence that the mark was ever used in the market on real products. The investigator’s unrebutted report stating no market presence, non-existence at addresses, and admission of non-use over phone, satisfied the initial scrutiny of the Court. Since Respondent No.1 chose silence and absence, the non-use facts were accepted as admitted, and continued non-use stood legally established. The Court also noted that when a company applies for a mark claiming “use”, but in fact never puts any real goods in market, it shows lack of honest intention (bona fide intent) to use the mark. This violates both Section 47(1)(a) and Section 47(1)(b), which allow removal when there was no real intention to use at filing, and/or when there was real continuous non-use for 5 years after entry in Register.
The Court also directed the Respondent No.2, represented through counsel, to inform the Registrar for corrections, and said that the digitally signed order uploaded on the official website of the Court will be treated as a certified copy.
Decision of the Court
The Petition was allowed. The registration for the mark “BLUE SPOT” under No. 3999818 in Class 33 owned by Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd was cancelled and ordered to be removed from the Register. Bona fide intention
Concluding Note
This decision reinforces that trademark law is rooted in common-sense fairness. A person or company may register a mark, but they must genuinely use it in the market within a reasonable time, and definitely defend it when its non-use is proved in Court. Silence, non-existence, and absence of goods in the market, speak loudly against the validity of a registration.
Concluding Remarks
The judgment protects rightful market players and strengthens the reliability of the trademark Register. It teaches that trademark law exists for the marketplace, not for paper ownership.
Bottom Case Details
Case Title: Irish Distillers International Limited Vs. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Order Date: 19.11.2025
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 77/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3992
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Concluding Section Text
At the end, add this text:
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 Journal Publication
The following five titles may suitably reflect the subject-matter depth and legal analysis for publication: "Trademark Register and the Reality Test: A Study on Judicial Approach to Non-Use Cancellation", "Bona Fide Use as the Heartbeat of Trademark Protection: Lessons from Delhi High Court’s Rectification Jurisprudence", "When Silence Becomes Admission: The Law of Unrebutted Non-Use Claims in Trademark Cancellation Proceedings", "Marketplace Presence or Register Removal: Understanding Section 47 through Recent Delhi High Court Interpretation", "Brand Protection v. Paper Ownership: A Common Man’s Guide to Trademark Cancellation for Non-Use"
=======
The High Court of Delhi in the trademark rectification case of Irish Distillers International Limited v. Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd & Anr., decided on 19.11.2025 in C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 77/2025, presided over by Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, examined whether a trademark registration can be continued when the registered proprietor has never genuinely used the mark in real commercial trade. The Court forms part of Delhi’s Intellectual Property Division, which handles specialised intellectual property matters, including trademark and patent disputes.
The Petitioner, Irish Distillers International Limited, the maker of premium single pot-still Irish whiskey, said that the Respondent, Stardford Spirits Pvt Ltd, obtained Indian trademark registration No. 3999818 for the mark “BLUE SPOT” in Class 33 and claimed “use” from November 2018, but had in fact never placed any product in the market under this mark. The Petitioner learned of this conflicting registration only when its own pending Indian application for BLUE SPOT (filed in March 2023) was objected to by the Trade Marks Registry citing the Respondent’s earlier mark.
The Petitioner placed evidence through an investigator’s report showing that the Respondent company could not be found at its official addresses, no product under the impugned mark existed in the market, and a representative contacted on the Registry-recorded mobile number confirmed that the mark had never been used. The Court made repeated attempts to serve Respondent No.1 by email, WhatsApp, and speed post. While digital service was successful, postal service failed, and the Respondent did not appear at any stage. Owing to this, the Court proceeded ex-parte (without the company present), and the unrebutted claims of non-use were treated as admitted in law.
In its reasoning, the Court relied on the purpose of Section 47 and Section 57 of the Trademarks Act 1999, which exist to maintain the honesty and reliability of the Trademark Register by preventing misuse, stockpiling, or hoarding of trademarks without real intention of use, and permitting cancellation if a mark has not been genuinely used in trade for a continuous period of five years after it is entered in the Register. The Court found that the registration granted in May 2019 had enjoyed the initial five-year protection window, but after crossing that period, there was still no real use of the mark in commerce. The Petitioner’s evidence satisfied the legal test, and Respondent’s silence sealed the result, as trademark rights must stand on real market use, not paper ownership alone.
Accordingly, the Court ordered removal of the impugned mark BLUE SPOT from the Register, directing correction by the Registrar, and disposed of the petition in favour of the Petitioner, giving it the legal path to pursue its own brand protection unhindered.
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.
=====
