Trademarks in the Courtroom: Noteworthy Decisions from India [Part-1]

Welcome to Part 1 of “Trademarks in the Courtroom: Noteworthy Decisions from India,” brought to you by BananaIP Counsels. This edition delves into recent significant judgments related to Trademark Law in India, offering an analytical perspective on key rulings that have shaped the trademark landscape.

Trademark squatting:

1. Delhi High Court orders removal of a trademark squatter’s registration.

The Delhi High Court has asked the Registrar of Trademarks to remove the BPI Sports trademark registration of Saurabh Gulati from the register based on bad faith and trademark squatting. Saurabh Gulati was an importer of the products of BPI Sports, and decided to register the mark on his own. Noting bad faith in the act, and stating that this amounts to trademark squatting, the Court asked the Registrar to remove the registration.

Citation: BPI Sports LLC Vs. Saurabh Gulati and Ors [C.O. (Comm. IPD-TM) 16/2021 and I.A. 13589/2021]

2. Delhi High Court restrains another trademark squatter in Botanic Hearth case.

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained the applicant of the mark, Botanic Hearth, from using the mark because the applicant was a potential squatter. The trademark applicant in the case had registered more than 160 marks including the likes of Mattel Games, Urbanboat, Tinkle, etc. Noting the activities of the defendant, the Court came to the prima facie conclusion that there is a likelihood of infringement by him.

Citation: Volans Uptown Llc Vs. Mahendra Jeshabhai Bambhaniya [CS(COMM) 257/2023]

Rectification of Register of Trademarks:

3. Jai Kisan trademark registrations removed due to non-use.

The Delhi High Court has recently passed an order removing the trademark registration, Jai Kisan, based on a lack of user proof. The Court pointed out in the case that if the claims of non-user are not refuted, the Court can arrive at a conclusion of non-use for removal of trademark registrations.

Citation: Ankit Aggarwal Vs. Gupta Casting Pvt. Ltd. and Ors [C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 769/2022, I.A. 18968/2022, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 770/2022 and I.A. 18971/2022]

We appreciate our readers’ continued interest in our series, shedding light on pivotal aspects of trademark jurisprudence in India. As we dissect these cases, we capture the evolving ethos of the nation’s trademark environment. Stay connected with BananaIP Counsels for more in-depth analyses in the subsequent parts of our series, enriching the discourse on Indian Intellectual Property Law.

To learn more about the trademark services provided by BananaIP, please visit: