Fabricated Evidence and trademark rectification
Facts: The case revolves around a dispute concerning the ownership and validity of the trademark “LE SHARK”, used for apparel and clothing items. The petitioner, Le Shark Apparel Limited, is a UK-based company that owns several trademarks registered across the United Kingdom and Europe since the 1980s. The company claims a long and well-established brand identity in clothing, footwear, and accessories under the “Le Shark” name and its distinctive shark device logo.
The trademark “LE SHARK” was originally conceived and adopted in 1984 by the petitioner’s predecessor, Le Shark Limited (UK). Over time, the mark was assigned through various entities — Joseph Leshark Limited, Hamsard 2353 Ltd., and finally to Le Shark Apparel Limited, the present petitioner. The brand achieved substantial international goodwill and was widely sold across Europe and other global markets.
The respondent, Anil Shah, applied for registration of the same mark “LE SHARK” in India in 1987 under Application No. 466002 in Class 25, covering clothing, footwear, and accessories. The application was made on a “proposed to be used” basis. This registration was granted in 1991 and later assigned to a partnership firm, M/s. Le Shark LLP (Respondent No. 2). The mark was renewed multiple times, most recently in 2018.
When the petitioner sought to register its own “LE SHARK” mark in India in 2015, the Trademark Registry cited the respondent’s earlier Indian registration as a conflicting mark. The petitioner’s application was subsequently refused in 2021. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed the present rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the respondent’s mark from the register on grounds of non-use, lack of bona fide intention, and fraudulent adoption.
Procedural History: The rectification petition was initially filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2018. It was admitted by the IPAB in October 2018. However, after the abolition of the IPAB under the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021, the case was transferred to the Bombay High Court for adjudication.
During the pendency of this case, the petitioner’s trademark application was rejected by the Registrar of Trademarks in April 2021, despite the ongoing rectification proceedings. The petitioner filed a review petition before the Registrar, which remained pending. The rectification petition was eventually heard and reserved for judgment in April 2025.
The Dispute: The central question before the Court was whether the respondents’ registered trademark “LE SHARK” should remain on the register or be expunged under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner argued that the respondents never used the mark in good faith and that their adoption was dishonest, amounting to trademark squatting on an international brand that was already well-known abroad. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that they had used the mark continuously since 1987 and had lawfully registered and renewed it.
The Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner claimed that the respondents, who had earlier manufactured garments for the petitioner’s affiliates in India, were fully aware of the “Le Shark” brand and its global reputation. Their attempt to register the same mark in India, without authorization, amounted to bad faith adoption.
Relying on Section 47(1)(a), the petitioner argued that the respondents never had a genuine intention to use the mark at the time of registration. Under Section 47(1)(b), the petitioner alleged that the mark had not been used for a continuous period of five years before the petition was filed. The invoices produced by the respondents, according to the petitioner, were fabricated and not supported by authentic records or evidence of actual trade.
The petitioner relied on decisions such as Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo Steels Ltd. (1997 SCC OnLine Bom 578) and Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. Denver Chemicals Manufacturing Co. (AIR 1959 Cal 636) to argue that identical adoption of a distinctive and foreign mark without justification evidences dishonesty.
Further, the petitioner invoked Section 57 of the Act, which empowers the Court to remove marks that were fraudulently registered or remain on the register without sufficient cause. The petitioner also established that it was an “aggrieved person” under law since its own trademark application in India had been refused due to the respondents’ mark — thereby directly affecting its commercial interests and legal rights.
Respondent's argument: The respondents contended that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had no business presence or trans-border reputation in India prior to 2014. They claimed that the petitioner’s mark was re-launched only in December 2014 and that the alleged use outside India had no relevance for a domestic registration dating back to 1987.
They argued that the petition was barred by delay, as the respondents had lawfully used the “Le Shark” mark for nearly 37 years. The respondents also claimed to have submitted invoices and other documents showing continued use. They relied on Eagle Potteries Pvt. Ltd. v. Eagle Flask Industries Pvt. Ltd. (1992 SCC OnLine Bom 490) to assert that the burden of proving non-use lies on the petitioner.
Furthermore, the respondents objected to the petitioner’s authority to file the petition, alleging that the power of attorney in favor of the petitioner’s constituted attorney was defective. They cited Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Offshore Enterprises Inc. (1993 Mh LJ 243) to argue that an advocate cannot simultaneously act as both counsel and power of attorney holder.
The Reasoning: The Court began by clarifying the purpose of Sections 47 and 57. Section 47 provides for the removal of trademarks from the register where there is either a lack of bona fide intention to use at the time of registration or non-use for a continuous five-year period. Section 57 empowers the Court to rectify the register for entries made “without sufficient cause” or “wrongly remaining” due to fraud or error.
The Court found clear evidence of dishonest adoption. The respondent’s mark and logo were identical to the petitioner’s earlier European registrations from 1985. The respondents failed to offer any credible explanation for how they conceived the same name and design. The Court observed that “Le Shark” is a fanciful and arbitrary combination of French and English words, not a common expression, and thus unlikely to be independently created by coincidence.
The Court scrutinized the invoices filed by the respondents and found them prima facie fabricated, as they were dated 2006 but referred to a company that was incorporated only in 2009. This fabrication severely undermined the credibility of the respondents’ entire case. Referring to Jayant Industries v. Indian Tobacco Company (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 64) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1, the Court held that litigants who rely on false evidence are not entitled to equitable relief.
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that mere website presence or sporadic invoices could constitute bona fide use. Citing La Societe Anonyme Des Parfums Le Galion v. Jean Patou Inc. (1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9252), it held that minimal or sporadic use does not satisfy the statutory standard of bona fide commercial use.
The Court further held that any rights the respondents enjoyed under the old Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 were now governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and hence their registration remained subject to Sections 47 and 57.
Regarding the alleged procedural defects in the petitioner’s power of attorney, the Court found them curable and inconsequential, relying on United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar (1996) 6 SCC 660 and Western India Theatres Ltd. v. Ishwarbhai Somabhai Patel (1958 SCC OnLine Bom 99). Thus, technical irregularities could not defeat substantive justice.
The Court finally concluded that the respondents’ registration was tainted with dishonesty and absence of bona fide use, warranting removal from the register.
Decision: The Bombay High Court allowed the petition and ordered rectification of the register, directing the removal of Trademark No. 466002 in Class 25 (“LE SHARK”) registered in the name of the respondents. The Court held that the respondents had no genuine intention to use the mark, had submitted fabricated evidence, and had dishonestly adopted a foreign brand known internationally.
The judgment reaffirmed that trademark law protects honest commercial practices and that registration obtained through fraud or imitation cannot enjoy statutory protection.
Significance of this Judgement: This decision is significant because it strengthens the legal position that dishonest or bad-faith registrations can be expunged even decades later, and that fabricated evidence will be fatal to a party’s defense. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of bona fide use, distinguishing between genuine commercial exploitation and token or sporadic activities. It further reaffirms that procedural irregularities, such as minor defects in powers of attorney, cannot override substantive justice when the fraudulent intent behind a registration is apparent.
Case Title: Le Shark Apparel Limited Vs. Anil Shah & Others
Pronounced on: 14 October 2025
Case Number: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 538 of 2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:18797
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Commercial Division, Original Side)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.I. Chagla
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
