Court cancels 75-Year-Old TRIUMPH Trademark for Non-Use in Favor of Triumph Motorcycles

Summary

In the case of Triumph Designs Limited v. Tube Investments of India and Anr., the Calcutta High Court cancelled the TRIUMPH trademark registered for cycles under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act, in favour of TRIUMPH motorcycles. The Court held that the petitioner was a “person aggrieved” and proved non-use of the mark for over 75 years.

Background

The petitioner, Triumph Designs Limited, is part of the globally renowned Triumph Motorcycle group, which has used the “TRIUMPH” mark since 1886 for motorcycles. The group operates through entities like Triumph Motorcycles Limited and Triumph Motorcycles (India) Private Limited, with extensive registrations and use in India and abroad. The petitioner holds multiple “TRIUMPH” trademarks in India for motorcycles and has built significant goodwill through continuous use, advertising, and high sales figures.

The impugned registration, owned by Respondent No. 1 (Tube Investments of India), dates back to September 28, 1950, in Class 12 for bicycles. The petitioner filed an application under Section 47(1)(a) and (b) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation on grounds of non-use. It alleged that the respondent had no bona fide intention to use the mark and had not used it for the statutory five-year period (or longer), supported by internet searches showing no evidence of use. The petitioner further argued that the registration was merely “blocking” the Registrar, preventing rightful owners from securing the mark.

Triumph’s Arguments

Triumph Designs (Peitioner) argued that:

• • • The “TRIUMPH” mark enjoys international fame and reputation, with uninterrupted use in India for motorcycles since its introduction.
    • There is zero evidence of use of the mark by the Respondent (Tube Investments), even after 75 years of registration, justifying removal under Section 47(1)(a) (lack of bona fide intention and non-use) and 47(1)(b) (non-use for five years or more).
    • Internet reports and the absence of any counter-evidence from the respondent substantiate non-use.
    • The registration impedes the petitioner’s interests as a well-known mark owner in a related field, making the petitioner a “person aggrieved.”
    • Consequential reliefs, including expungement, should be granted to protect public interest and prevent unfair blocking.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondent – Tube Investments challenged the maintainability of the application and argued that:

• • • The petitioner is not a “person aggrieved” under the Act, as it has registered multiple unused marks itself, indicating selective enforcement.
    • The petitioner has no use of “TRIUMPH” for related goods like mopeds, scooters, bicycles, e-bikes, tri-cycles, or quad bikes, rendering its grievance baseless.
    • The application is an opportunistic move by a business rival to monopolize the mark, contrary to public interest and amounting to unfair competition.
    • There are no special circumstances justifying non-use, but the petitioner’s own conduct undermines its locus standi.

Court’s Analysis

Court’s Interpretation of “Person Aggrieved”

The court referred to Hardie Trading Ltd. v. Addisons Paint & Chemicals Ltd. to interpret the phrase “person aggrieved.” According to the court, a person seeking removal of a trademark for non-use under Section 47 must show a legitimate commercial interest. The court stated that Triumph Designs Limited had such an interest due to its extensive use and registration of the TRIUMPH mark for motorcycles in India and abroad.

Court’s Analysis of Trademark Non-Use

The court observed that the respondent had obtained registration in 1950 but failed to show any use of the trademark for over 75 years. The court referred to Kellogg Company v. Pops Food Products (P) Ltd. and Russell Corp Australia PTY Limited v. Ashok Mahajan, and reiterated that use must be genuine and in relation to the goods for which the mark is registered. The court said there was no evidence of use for “cycles driven solely by the feet,” and the respondent’s failure to provide a valid explanation justified cancellation.

Conclusion:

• • • The court held that Triumph Designs Limited was a “person aggrieved” under Section 47 of the Act.
    • The court found that the TRIUMPH mark had not been used for a continuous period of five years and three months before the date of application.
    • The court cancelled and expunged trademark number 135253 from the register.

Case Citation: Triumph Designs Limited v. Tube Investments of India and Anr., IPDATM/30/2023, decided by the Calcutta High Court on 25th September 2025. Available on: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120587797/