Malkit Singh, proprietor of Makhan Fish Corner, claimed use of the trademark ‘MAKHAN FISH CORNER’ since 1962 for restaurant and food services in Class 43, obtained registration in 2023 after successfully defending an opposition filed by Makhan Fish Co in 2016 which was dismissed in 2022.
However Makhan Fish Co subsequently filed a rectification petition in 2024 leading to the Registrar removing the mark from the register vide order dated 14.08.2025 on the ground that Makhan Fish Co was the prior user with evidence from 1981 while the appellant’s earliest document was from 2013.
The Delhi High Court in appeal found the impugned order non-speaking as it failed to consider or evaluate the appellant’s evidence including third-party affidavits and CA certificates from 2001 substantiating use, ignored substantive objections to maintainability of rectification, overlooked class distinction between Class 29/35 and Class 43 and likelihood of confusion analysis, and violated principles of natural justice by lacking reasons, consequently the appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside and the rectification petition remanded for fresh decision with directions to pass a reasoned order within six months without being influenced by prior observations.
Law Point:
- A quasi-judicial order, particularly one adversely affecting statutory rights of a registered trademark proprietor, must be a reasoned and speaking order disclosing application of mind to facts, evidence and submissions; failure renders it unsustainable (Paras 18-20).
- Non-consideration of material evidence on record and proceeding on erroneous assumptions demonstrate non-application of mind (Paras 13, 17).
- Distinction in classes of goods/services and absence of analysis on likelihood of confusion, trade channels and consumer overlap are essential considerations in rectification proceedings (Paras 15-16).
- Principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation require statutory authorities to provide reasons for conclusions (Para 20).
