Rhizome Distilleries Pvt.Ltd. v. Union Of India

Every founder dreams of building a brand that lasts. But what protects that brand when the very office that registered it later tries to take it away? The case of Rhizome Distilleries and its 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark is a powerful reminder that trademark battles don't always end at registration—and that timing, once lost, can be fatal to the party raising objections.

Rhizome Distilleries Pvt. Ltd., an Indian spirits manufacturer, had registered and actively used the trademark 'IMPERIAL GOLD' for its products. The mark had gone through the standard registration process, during which prior objections had been raised against it. Critically, those earlier objections were withdrawn. Despite this, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) later issued an order seeking to remove the 'IMPERIAL GOLD' mark from the register through a rectification proceeding. Rhizome Distilleries challenged this order before the Madras High Court, setting the stage for a fight over whether a trademark office could reopen a closed chapter.

Rhizome Distilleries argued that the IPAB had fundamentally erred in law. The grounds the IPAB relied upon to cancel the mark were the very same grounds that should have been—and indeed had been—raised at the time of initial registration. Because those prior objections had been withdrawn, the petitioner contended that the issue was already settled. Allowing the IPAB to apply refusal grounds retroactively through a rectification application, after years of continuous use, was legally unsustainable. On the other side, the authorities defended the IPAB's order, presumably arguing that rectification was a separate proceeding that could independently examine the validity of the mark on the register, regardless of what had happened during the original registration phase.

The Madras High Court sided decisively with Rhizome Distilleries. The court quashed the IPAB's order, holding that the appellate board had erred by applying grounds for refusal—which belong at the stage of initial registration—to a rectification application filed much later. The court emphasized that the petitioner had used the mark and that prior objections had been withdrawn. Allowing the same grounds to be resurrected years down the line, after continuous use, was legally impermissible. The 'IMPERIAL GOLD' trademark survived.

For founders and IP professionals, the lesson is sharp and practical: trademark opposition is a window that closes. If you believe a mark should not be registered—whether due to likelihood of confusion or any other ground—you must raise your objection at the time of initial registration. Withdrawing an objection or staying silent does not give you a second chance through rectification proceedings years later, especially once the mark holder has built use and reputation around the brand. Document your objections, act decisively at the right stage, and never assume the registry will clean up your mistakes for you down the road.