Short Summary
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by Vivek Kochher & Anr challenging an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order that rectified the trademark 'KYK'. The court upheld the finding that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating continuous commercial use of the mark since the dates claimed in their registration applications. Consequently, the court affirmed the IPAB's conclusion that the original registration was obtained based on a false statement and fraud, favoring the respondent, KYK Corp.
Detailed Summary
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.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Vivek Kochher & Anr vs M/S Kyk Corporation Ltd & Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
The North Face Apparel CorpvsController of Patents and Designs
The North Face Apparel Corp challenged the Controller of Patents' refusal of its patent application (No. 202147026139) titled 'Systems and Methods for End-to-End Article Management' before the Madras High Court under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970. The Controller had rejected the application citing lack of inventive step over prior art documents D21-D24. The Court held that the Controller erred by dissecting the claims into isolated elements rather than assessing the invention as a whole, and overlooked the use of spectrophotometer and invisible markers for tracking the manufacturing process, which were not disclosed in the cited prior art. The appeal was allowed and the Controller was directed to grant the patent.
Aventose Energy Private LimitedvsThe Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Patent Office Chennai
Aventose Energy Private Limited appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 against the refusal of its patent application (No. 202141019671) for a 'System and Method for Operating Automobiles with an Electric Drivetrain' featuring safe mode activation upon fault detection. The Madras High Court found that the Assistant Controller had contradicted the First Examination Report (which accepted novelty) by subsequently holding the invention lacked novelty without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The court further held that the Controller improperly conflated novelty with inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) and failed to properly analyze the claims against prior art documents D1–D4.
Apex Laboratories Pvt LtdvsElder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care
Apex Laboratories Pvt Ltd, the prior adopter and registered proprietor of the trademark ZINCOVIT (TM No. 487453 in Class 5) since 1988, sought interim injunction against Elder Lifescience and Ambico Ayurvedic Health Care for using the deceptively similar mark NEO ZINCOVIT. The applicant also claimed copyright infringement of its registered artistic works (A-108878/2014) covering colour scheme, get-up, and layout. The Madras High Court was satisfied that the respondents were attempting to piggyback on the applicant's goodwill and granted interim injunctions on all three applications covering trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Radico Khaitan LimitedvsPicadilly Agro Industries Limited
This Special Leave Petition arose from a judgment dated 29-05-2026 in CS No. 8/2025 passed by the District Judge, Karnal, Haryana, concerning a trademark dispute over the marks 'Cashmere' and 'Kashmyr' used in relation to beer and vodka. The Supreme Court noted that a First Appeal (FAO-COM-11-2026) was already pending before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, listed for 28.10.2026. The Court disposed of the SLP without adjudicating it on merits, requesting the High Court to pass an appropriate order regarding the ad interim injunction on the scheduled date.
Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society (Regd.)vsMaharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University
The plaintiff, Maharaja Agrasen Technical Educational Society, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant, Maharaja Agrasen Himalayan Garhwal University, alleging infringement and passing off regarding the use of the words 'Maharaja Agrasen' in the defendant's name. The Delhi High Court had previously granted a restraint order on 10.07.2026. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a settlement dated 14.09.2026, under which the defendant agreed to change its name through a statutory amendment while being permitted limited transitional use of its existing name. The court recorded the settlement, modified the interim order accordingly, and listed the matter for compliance reporting on 13.07.2027.
Varahi Diamonds And Finance LimitedvsSahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr.
This is a commercial suit filed by Varahi Diamonds And Finance Limited against Sahil Vinay Mehra Trading As Mehra Sons Jewellers & Anr. before the Delhi High Court. The order is primarily procedural, dealing with the registration of the plaint, issuance of summons, directions for filing pleadings, and an interim injunction application. The matter was referred to mediation, with parties directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.