Summary
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a rectification petition seeking cancellation of the trademark “BADAL”, which had claimed use since 1945. The Court emphasized that fraud must be established with strong evidence, which the Petitioner was unable to provide. Further, as the alleged defects in assignment involved disputed factual questions requiring full trial, the Court refused to invalidate the registration.
Facts
The Petitioner, M/s Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works, sought rectification of the trademark “BADAL” (registered in 1991 with claimed use from 1945), in the name of Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. The Petitioner owns the later mark “GHANGHOR BADAL”, and is a defendant in a pending infringement suit filed by Respondent no. 1.
The Petitioner alleged that Respondent no. 1 fraudulently obtained the “BADAL” registration through defective assignment documents. According to the Petitioner, the original owners (a partnership/HUF entity) never validly assigned the mark, and the later assignment deed relied upon by Respondent no. 1 was inconsistent and fabricated.
Issues
Whether the Petitioner proved that the assignment deeds forming the basis of Respondent no. 1’s ownership of the “BADAL” mark were fraudulent or invalid.
Whether such allegations of fraud could succeed in rectification proceedings without supporting evidence, especially when the mark has a long-standing claimed use since 1945.
Parties’ Contentions
-
- Petitioner contended that the impugned registration was fraudulently procured by Respondent no. 1 through invalid Assignment Deeds in 2006 and 2011. Since Respondent no. 1 derived title only through these allegedly fraudulent documents, the registration deserved cancellation.
- Respondent no. 1 filed no reply.
- Respondent no. 2 (Registrar) maintained that the Registry records correctly showed Respondent no. 1 as proprietor, with the mark validly renewed until 2035.
Court’s Analysis and Order
The Court held that even when unrebutted, allegations of fraud must be proved with strong and cogent evidence. The Petitioner had not produced any such evidence.
The documents filed by Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey did not, on their face, suggest illegality. There was no material showing that other HUF/partnership members ever disputed his ownership. Whether he could assign the mark to himself or whether the assignment deeds were inconsistent were disputed factual questions requiring trial, which could not be resolved in rectification proceedings.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had not challenged non-use or claimed similarity between the marks; its grievance centered only on alleged fraud in assignment. As the impugned mark had long-standing claimed use since 1945, the burden to disprove ownership was especially high. No prima facie fraud was evident on record.
Therefore, the Court dismissed the rectification petition. It held that the petitioner failed to prove fraud or invalidity in the assignment chain of the trademark “BADAL”, and that such disputed factual matters required full trial. The registration of “BADAL” therefore remained valid.
Citation: M/S Sita Ram Iron Foundry And Engineering vs Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. And Anr on 9 July, 2025, Delhi High Court, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2021. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113712457/.
Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun.