The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on trademark rectification, ordered the removal of the registered mark "BANDOOK" in Class 33 due to non-use for over five years, reinforcing the principle that trademark registration must be backed by genuine commercial intent and actual use to maintain validity on the Register. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to preserving the integrity of the trademark registry by eliminating entries that serve merely as blocking or squatting mechanisms rather than reflecting bona fide trade activity.
Introduction
In the evolving landscape of Indian trademark jurisprudence, the requirement of genuine use remains a cornerstone of protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Registration confers prima facie validity, yet it is not an indefeasible right; prolonged non-use exposes even a duly registered mark to cancellation. The Delhi High Court's judgment in this rectification petition exemplifies this balance, where a petitioner with prior registration in a related class successfully secured removal of an identical conflicting mark in a cognate class, primarily because the registered proprietor failed to appear, contest the allegations, or demonstrate any use. The case highlights how non-use for the statutory period, coupled with absence of rebuttal evidence, shifts the evidentiary burden decisively in favour of removal, ensuring that the Register reflects only marks that actively function as source identifiers in commerce.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Yashasvi Havelia, is engaged in the conceptualization, development, and marketing of beverages, encompassing both alcoholic and non-alcoholic categories, including beer. The petitioner independently conceived and adopted the arbitrary and distinctive trademark "BANDOOK" as the core identifier for its beverage portfolio. The mark was successfully registered in Class 32 (covering beer and non-alcoholic beverages) under Registration No. 6240831 with effect from December 30, 2023, after overcoming an initial objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the 1999 Act by demonstrating its distinctiveness. With commercial operations under the mark advancing toward full-scale manufacturing subject to regulatory approvals, the petitioner sought to expand protection by filing Application No. 7076325 on June 21, 2025, for "BANDOOK" in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages excluding beer) on a "proposed to be used" basis. A public search on the Trade Marks Registry portal revealed the existence of an earlier registration for the identical mark "BANDOOK" in Class 33 under Registration No. 3762319 in the name of Prabhtej Bhatia (trading as Raipur Bottling Company), Respondent No.1, registered on February 23, 2018. The petitioner asserted that this registration blocked its Class 33 application and constituted the sole impediment. Investigations, including searches of public records, regulatory databases, and commercial indicators, disclosed no evidence of any use of the mark by Respondent No.1 in relation to alcoholic beverages—no excise licenses, manufacturing approvals, brand label registrations, digital presence, or public sales references—despite more than seven years having elapsed since registration. The petitioner contended that the registration appeared to have been obtained without bona fide intent to use, amounting to trademark squatting contrary to the spirit of the 1999 Act.
Procedural Background
The rectification petition was instituted under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of the impugned entry on the ground of non-use under Section 47(1)(b). Respondent No.1 was served via speed post on August 19, 2025, but failed to enter appearance or file any reply. The Registrar recorded on December 10, 2025, that the right to file a reply stood closed due to non-compliance. Despite repeated opportunities, including court notices, Respondent No.1 remained absent throughout the proceedings and was set ex parte. Respondent No.2 (the Trade Marks Registry) was represented by the Central Government Standing Counsel but did not contest the substantive relief sought. An exemption application (I.A. 17044/2025) was allowed, and the main petition along with connected interim application (I.A. 17043/2025) proceeded to final hearing. Subsequently, on February 10, 2026, the petitioner filed I.A. 3607/2026 under Section 152 CPC for correction of a typographical error in paragraph 20 of the January 22, 2026 judgment (which erroneously referenced a different mark and registration number), which was allowed without opposition from Respondent No.2, and the corrected paragraph was directed to be read as part of the original judgment.
Reasoning and Decision of Court
Justice Jyoti Singh, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and perusing the record, held that the absence of any reply from Respondent No.1 rendered all averments in the petition deemed admitted, particularly the categorical plea of non-use. Relying on precedents such as DORCO Co. Ltd. v. Durga Enterprises (2023 SCC OnLine Del 1484) and Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v. Mohammad Arshad (2025 SCC OnLine Del 1401), the Court reiterated that while the initial onus to prove non-use lies on the applicant, once pleaded, the failure of the respondent to specifically deny it leads to admission of the allegation. The Court further drew from Russell Corp Australia Pty. Limited v. Ashok Mahajan (2023 SCC OnLine Del 4796) and Shell Transource Limited (2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29) to affirm that independent investigations revealing no commercial activity, absence of regulatory clearances (especially critical in the regulated alcoholic beverages sector), and lack of any bona fide intent to use justify removal. The petitioner qualified as a "person aggrieved" under Section 47, as the continued presence of the impugned mark prejudiced its legitimate business expansion and blocked its pending application, consistent with Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. Jupiter Infosys Ltd. (2011) 1 SCC 125. Section 47(1)(b) was directly applicable, as the mark remained unused for a continuous period exceeding five years up to three months prior to the petition's filing. The Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove Registration No. 3762319 for "BANDOOK" in Class 33 from the Register and rectify it to maintain purity. The petition was allowed, with the typographical correction incorporated via the subsequent order.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
This judgment reinforces and applies the settled principle that in rectification proceedings grounded on non-use under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the petitioner makes a specific and categorical plea of non-use supported by investigations, and the registered proprietor fails to file any reply or specifically deny the allegation despite service, such non-use stands admitted, shifting the balance decisively in favour of cancellation. The decision clarifies that in regulated sectors like alcoholic beverages, the absence of excise licenses, manufacturing approvals, or any commercial footprint over the statutory period strongly evidences lack of bona fide intent to use, rendering the registration vulnerable to removal even without formal evidence from the petitioner beyond pleadings and searches. It further solidifies the position that a party with prior registration in a cognate class and a pending application in the conflicting class qualifies as a "person aggrieved," entitled to seek rectification to safeguard its commercial interests.
Case Detail
Title: Yashasvi Havelia Vs. Prabhtej Bhatia and Anr.
Date of Order: 22nd January, 2026 (Judgment); 10th February, 2026 (Correction Order)
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:884
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it 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:
Delhi High Court Cancels "BANDOOK" Trademark in Class 33 on Ground of Non-Use: Key Takeaways on Section 47 Rectification
Non-Use for Over Five Years Leads to Removal of Trademark Registration: Analysis of Yashasvi Havelia v. Prabhtej Bhatia
Trademark Squatting Rejected: Delhi High Court Upholds Removal of Unused "BANDOOK" Mark in Alcoholic Beverages Class
When Absence of Use Equals Loss of Rights: Delhi High Court's Ex-Parte Rectification Order in BANDOOK Case
Suggested Tags: #TrademarkRectification #NonUseCancellation #Section47 #TradeMarksAct1999 #DelhiHighCourt #BANDOOKTrademark #TrademarkNonUse #IPLitigation #TrademarkSquatting #Class33AlcoholicBeverages #RectificationPetition #ExParteOrder #TrademarkRegisterPurity
Headnote
Rectification petition under Sections 47 & 57 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 allowed — Removal of trademark "BANDOOK" under Registration No. 3762319 in Class 33 directed on ground of non-use for continuous period exceeding five years — Averments of non-use deemed admitted due to respondent's failure to file reply or appear despite service — Petitioner held "person aggrieved" owing to prior registration in Class 32 and pending application in Class 33 blocked by impugned mark — Absence of excise licenses and commercial activity evidences lack of bona fide intent to use — Register rectified to maintain purity — Typographical error in judgment corrected under Section 152 CPC.
=====
Brief Summary
Yashasvi Havelia, who holds registration for the trademark “BANDOOK” in Class 32 (beer and non-alcoholic beverages) since 30.12.2023 and filed an application for the same mark in Class 33 (alcoholic beverages excluding beer) on 21.06.2025 on proposed-to-be-used basis, discovered an earlier identical registration in Class 33 under No.3762319 dated 23.02.2018 in the name of Prabhtej Bhatia (Raipur Bottling Company). Claiming non-use of the impugned mark for over five years with no excise licences, manufacturing approvals, commercial activity or bona fide intent to use, the petitioner filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Respondent No.1 was served but never appeared or filed any reply, leading to the right to contest being closed and the matter proceeding ex parte. The Court held that the petitioner’s specific pleadings of non-use, supported by investigations showing absence of regulatory clearances and commercial footprint in the highly regulated alcoholic beverages sector, stood admitted due to lack of denial by the registered proprietor. The petitioner qualified as a “person aggrieved” because the impugned registration blocked its pending Class 33 application and prejudiced its business expansion. Accordingly, the Court directed removal of the impugned mark from the Register under Section 47(1)(b) for non-use over the continuous statutory period, with a subsequent order correcting a typographical error in the operative direction.
Points of Law Settled
In rectification proceedings for non-use under Section 47(1)(b), where the applicant/petitioner makes a categorical plea of non-use supported by investigation/search evidence and the registered proprietor fails to file any reply or specifically deny the allegation despite service, the plea of non-use stands deemed admitted and the mark is liable to be removed (followed DORCO Co. Ltd. v. Durga Enterprises, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1484 and Kiranakart Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohammad Arshad, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1401 – Paras 14–15).
Absence of excise licences, manufacturing approvals, brand registrations or any commercial/digital presence over the statutory period in a regulated sector like alcoholic beverages strongly evidences lack of bona fide intent to use and justifies removal on non-use grounds even in ex parte proceedings (Paras 17–18).
A party holding prior registration in a cognate class (here Class 32) and having a pending application in the conflicting class (Class 33) qualifies as a “person aggrieved” under Section 47, entitled to seek rectification where the impugned mark impedes its legitimate commercial interests (relied on Infosys Technologies Ltd. v. Jupiter Infosys Ltd., (2011) 1 SCC 125 – Para 9).
The requirement of continuous non-use for at least five years up to three months prior to filing the rectification petition is satisfied where no genuine use is shown and no special circumstances are pleaded or proved by the proprietor (relied on Russell Corp Australia Pty. Ltd. v. Ashok Mahajan, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4796 and Shell Transource Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine IPAB 29 – Paras 11, 16–17).
Case Title: Yashasvi Havelia v. Prabhtej Bhatia & Anr.
Order Date: 22 January 2026 (Judgment); 10 February 2026 (Correction Order)
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 166/2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:884
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
======
