Short Summary
The Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) decision to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The court found that the IPAB overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. Citing Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, the High Court held that the use of an associated trade mark can be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark. Consequently, the court set aside the IPAB's order and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Detailed Summary
In the fast-paced world of intellectual property, a single misstep can lead to the cancellation of a valuable trademark, causing significant financial and reputational damage to a company. The case of Modi-Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr. serves as a cautionary tale, reminding founders and IP professionals of the need to carefully consider all relevant factors when challenging trademark rectification based on non-use.
The dispute began when the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) decided to de-register the trademark 'FECONTIN' due to alleged non-use. The IPAB's decision was challenged in the Delhi High Court, which was tasked with determining whether the IPAB had erred in its assessment. At the heart of the matter was the question of whether the use of an associated mark, 'FECONTIN F', could be considered equivalent to the use of the primary mark, 'FECONTIN'.
The petitioner argued that the IPAB had overlooked a crucial fact: 'FECONTIN' was registered as an associated mark of 'FECONTIN F'. The respondent countered that the non-use of 'FECONTIN' was sufficient grounds for de-registration, regardless of the associated mark. The legal friction centered on the interpretation of Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, which allows for the use of an associated trade mark to be accepted as equivalent to the use of the primary mark.
The Delhi High Court ultimately set aside the IPAB's order, remanding the matter for a fresh hearing. The court held that the IPAB had indeed erred in its assessment, failing to consider the associated mark 'FECONTIN F' as equivalent use of the primary mark 'FECONTIN'. This decision was based on a careful reading of Section 55(1) of the Trade Marks Act, which provides a crucial exception to the general rule of non-use.
The outcome of this case serves as a reminder to founders and IP professionals of the importance of carefully utilizing statutory provisions, such as Section 55(1), when challenging trademark rectification based on non-use. By properly considering associated marks, companies can prevent procedural errors from leading to the cancellation of their valuable trademarks, ultimately protecting their brand and reputation.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Modi- Mundipharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
PepsiCo, Inc.vsMajji Suresh
PepsiCo successfully petitioned the Madras High Court to strike off a confusingly similar trademark, 'PEPPS,' registered by Majji Suresh. The court found that the mark PEPPS bears striking phonetic and visual resemblance to PepsiCo's globally recognized mark, PEPSI. Given PepsiCo's established reputation and well-known status of its brand, the court allowed the petition, directing the cancellation of the infringing registration.
Kuber Khaini Private LimitedvsSopariwala Exports And Another
The Bombay High Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that Kuber Khaini Private Limited had adopted a deceptively similar trade-dress and label design to that of Sopariwala Exports. Although the Appellant used a different word mark ('Kuber' vs 'Afzal'), the court ruled that the adoption of the entire color scheme, get up, and descriptive elements constituted an attempt to trade on the Respondent's reputation. The judgment clarified that while a trademark disclaimer limits statutory infringement claims, it does not prevent a claim for passing off based on deceptive similarity.
Mankind Agritech Private LimitedvsRegistrar Of Trade Marks
Mankind Agritech Private Limited filed an appeal challenging the refusal of registration for its trademark application no. 5617624 in Class 1. The Delhi High Court issued a procedural order, setting out the timeline and requirements for both parties to proceed with the appeal. This interim step allows the appellant to challenge the Registrar's decision regarding the trademark refusal.
Nouveau Medicament Private LimitedvsOrange Biotech Private Limited & Ors. (Ritual Drugs Private Limited and Akshar Molecules Inc)
Nouveau Medicament Private Limited, the registered proprietor of the pharmaceutical trademark 'ARG 9' (Registration No. 2645507), sought an ad interim injunction against Orange Biotech and others who were using the mark 'ORG 9' for a similar pharmaceutical product. The Madras High Court found prima facie trademark infringement, noting that the alpha-numeric mark ORG-9 was deceptively similar to the registered mark ARG-9, and relied on its earlier order dated 07.01.2026 in OA Nos. 740-742 of 2025 where a similar mark 'URG-9' was held to be prima facie infringing. The court granted the ad interim injunction as prayed for and issued notice to the respondents returnable in four weeks.
M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc.vsMr Rajesh Kumar
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of M/S Changsha Sinocare Inc. against the defendants regarding alleged infringement and passing off. The court found a prima facie case based on the use of deceptively similar marks ('Safe AQ'/'Safe Accu') and trade dress, as well as confusingly similar corporate names. Consequently, the defendants were restrained from selling or marketing products that mimic Sinocare’s intellectual property, and specific infringing URLs were directed to be disabled by e-commerce platforms.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.
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.