The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark "SHAKTI" from the Register of Trade Marks after finding that its registered proprietor failed to establish bona fide intention or actual use of the mark. The Court held that the registration could not continue when there was no convincing evidence showing the trademark had ever been genuinely used for the goods for which it was registered.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the judgment while deciding a trademark rectification petition filed by Mr. P.C. Duraisamy, proprietor of the long-standing "SAKTHI" brand for food products.
Background of the Case
The petitioner claimed that the trademark "SAKTHI" had been adopted in 1977 and had since been used extensively for spices, masalas, edible oils, flour, pickles and other food products. According to the petitioner, the brand had acquired significant goodwill in India as well as overseas through continuous commercial use, registrations across several classes, and extensive advertising.
The dispute arose after the respondent secured registration of the trademark "SHAKTI" under Class 30 in 2018, based on an application originally filed in 1996. The petitioner argued that the registration deserved to be cancelled because there was neither genuine intention to use the mark nor any proof that it had actually been used in the marketplace. The petition also referred to earlier litigation between the parties concerning similar trademarks.
Court Examines Evidence of Trademark Use
The High Court closely examined documents produced by both sides.
While the petitioner placed registrations, invoices and material showing use of the "SAKTHI" mark over several years, the Court found that the respondents had not produced any invoice or commercial document demonstrating independent use of the trademark "SHAKTI", either before or after its registration.
The respondents argued that their use of the composite mark "SHAKTI BHOG" should legally be treated as use of the standalone word "SHAKTI". They relied on provisions of the Trade Marks Act relating to composite marks and honest concurrent use.
However, the Court was not persuaded.
Court's Observations
Rejecting the respondents' principal defence, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed:
"There is not even a single scrap of proof, documentary or otherwise... to establish... that the said mark has been used in the past."
The Court further held that:
"Mere assertion, without any tangible evidence, shall not fulfill the requirements of Section 12 of the Act."
The Court accepted that the legal interpretation suggested by the respondents regarding composite trademarks was "interesting" and "plausible." Nevertheless, it held that such an interpretation could not substitute the absence of factual evidence showing actual commercial use of the standalone trademark "SHAKTI."
The Court also noted that both "SAKTHI" and "SHAKTI" were phonetically and structurally similar and conveyed the same meaning. Since both parties dealt with goods falling under Class 30, there was a likelihood that ordinary consumers could be confused between the competing marks.
Finding on the Trade Marks Act
The Court held that the petitioner had successfully established grounds under Section 47(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, which permits removal of a registered trademark where there was no bona fide intention to use the mark and no genuine commercial use is established.
However, the Court clarified that the challenge under Section 47(1)(b) could not succeed because the statutory period of five years from registration had not elapsed when the rectification petition was filed.
Court's Decision
Allowing the rectification petition, the Delhi High Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel and remove the trademark "SHAKTI", registered under Registration No. 701410 in Class 30, from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks.
The Court concluded that the registration had remained on the register without sufficient cause and was therefore liable to be removed under Sections 47(1)(a) and 57(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
The petition was disposed of without any order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Mr. P.C. Duraisamy v. Kewal Krishan Kumar & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 180/2022
Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Decision Date: 24 June 2026
-300x169.webp)
