Delhi High Court on Trademark Rectification: Territorial Limitation Not Applicable to Later TM Registration.

The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Ganraj Enterprises challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks’ order rejecting the rectification petition against TM No. 1566805 (‘HP’) held by Landmark Crafts Ltd. The Court held that the territorial restriction of TM No. 1566805 (limited to Uttar Pradesh) does not automatically apply to TM No. 2848372, which grants pan-India rights. The Court also clarified that the Appellant had locus standi to file the rectification petition, but the primary ground—alleged false user claim since 15.12.1995—was not entertained as it was sub judice before a commercial court. Evidence showed that Respondent No. 1’s use of the mark ‘HP’ in Maharashtra predated the Appellant’s claim. Consequently, no restraint could be placed on Respondent No. 1’s use of the mark outside Uttar Pradesh.

1. TM No. 1566805 for ‘HP’ was filed by Landmark Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. in 2007 claiming use since 15.12.1995; it was registered in 2011 with a territorial limitation to Uttar Pradesh.
2. TM No. 2848372 was filed in 2014 for the same mark ‘HP’ and granted pan-India protection in 2018 without any territorial restriction.
3. Ganraj Enterprises filed four trademark applications between 2014–2015 for marks ‘HP+/ ’ in Class 6 for self-drilling screws, claiming prior use from 2014–2015. These applications faced opposition and were partially refused or abandoned.
4. The Appellant sought rectification of TM No. 1566805 alleging it was obtained fraudulently and interfered with their mark ‘HP+/ ’.

1. Territorial limitation of one TM registration does not automatically extend to subsequent, distinct registrations of the same mark.
2. The alleged fraudulent prior user claim by Respondent No. 1 for 15.12.1995 could not be adjudicated in this appeal, as the matter is sub judice before the Commercial Court.
3. Evidence of Respondent No. 1’s use of the mark ‘HP’ since 28.09.2006 (including in Maharashtra from 2010) was undisputed.
4. Appellant’s earliest substantiated use of ‘HP+/ ’ was from 2019, despite claiming adoption since 2014.
5. The Appellant had locus standi to file the rectification petition, but the substantive claims lacked merit.
6. Non-disclosure of prior assignment of TM No. 1566805 to Respondent No. 1, for the purpose of TM No. 2848372, is to be examined separately in the pending rectification application for TM No. 2848372.
7. Appellant’s request to restrain Respondent No. 1 from using ‘HP’ in Maharashtra or elsewhere in India was rejected.

1. Section 91, Trademarks Act, 1999 – Power of the High Court to rectify trademark registrations.
2. Rule 156, Trade Marks Rules, 2017 – Procedure for appeals from the Registrar’s order.
3. Section 16, Trademarks Act, 1999 – Association of trademarks and limitations.

1. Filing of the commercial suit by Respondent No. 1 is not a ground for maintaining the rectification petition.
2. Alleged false user claim since 15.12.1995 cannot be considered in this appeal.
3. Territorial limitation of TM No. 1566805 does not ipso facto extend to TM No. 2848372.
4. Appellant had locus standi to maintain the rectification petition.
5. Respondent No. 1’s use of ‘HP’ since 28.09.2006 (including Maharashtra since 2010) is undisputed.
6. Appellant’s claim of prior use of ‘HP+/ ’ from 2014 is not substantiated.
7. Respondent No. 1 cannot be restrained from using the mark ‘HP’ in Maharashtra or other States.
8. Any effect of non-disclosure regarding assignment of TM No. 1566805 will be examined in pending TM No. 2848372 rectification proceedings.

Order: Appeal dismissed; impugned order dated 10.11.2022 upheld. Pending applications disposed of.

Judge: MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

Date: 02 December 2025