Vivek Kochher & Anr v. M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd & Anr

Every trademark registration carries an implicit promise: that the mark is being used in genuine commerce. But what happens when that promise is broken, or worse, never kept? The Delhi High Court's decision in the dispute over the 'KYK' trademark serves as a stark reminder that a registered mark is only as strong as the evidence backing its use. For founders and brand builders, this case is a masterclass in why documentation is not just paperwork, it is the very lifeline of your intellectual property.

The dispute centered on the trademark 'KYK', originally registered in the names of Vivek Kochher and another party (the petitioners). The matter escalated when M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd and another entity (the respondents) sought rectification of this registration before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB ruled in favor of the respondents, finding that the petitioners had obtained the registration by making false claims and through fraud. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioners approached the Delhi High Court, challenging the IPAB's findings and seeking to restore their rights over the mark.

The petitioners argued that their registration was valid and that they were the rightful proprietors of the 'KYK' mark. They claimed continuous commercial use of the trademark since the dates they had stated in their registration applications. On the other side, the respondents and the IPAB contended that the petitioners had failed miserably in their duty to substantiate these claims. The central legal friction revolved around a single, critical question: could the petitioners produce credible, documentary evidence proving that the 'KYK' mark had been used continuously and genuinely in commerce since the claimed dates? The respondents argued that without such proof, the foundational claim of the registration was built on a false statement, rendering it liable for rectification.

The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vivek Kochher and the associated party, upholding the IPAB's order in its entirety. The court affirmed the core finding that the petitioners had failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the 'KYK' mark since the dates claimed in their registration applications. Because the petitioners could not bridge this evidentiary gap, the court agreed with the IPAB's conclusion that the original registration was obtained on the basis of a false statement and fraud. The outcome decisively favored M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd, effectively stripping the petitioners of their registered rights over the mark.

For founders, startup leaders, and IP professionals, this case delivers an uncompromising lesson: the burden of proof rests heavily on the trademark proprietor. Registering a mark is not the finish line; it is the starting point of an ongoing obligation. You must be able to produce documentary evidence invoices, sales records, advertising materials, shipping documents that link your trademark to actual goods during the entire period claimed in your application. Failure to maintain this paper trail is not a minor oversight; it is fatal to the validity of your registration and can expose your brand to rectification on grounds of fraud. Treat your trademark documentation as seriously as you treat your revenue.