The Delhi High Court has cancelled Trademark Registration for ‘THE BREW BUKHARA’ (device) in Class 43, after the registered proprietor confirmed through his trademark agent that the mark was never commercially exploited, had been discontinued after limited use during the COVID-19 period, and would not be used in future.
The Court reiterated that, where a registered proprietor fails to reply despite service, the petition’s averments remain unrebutted and are deemed admitted. It relied on authorities concerning non-use, abandonment and cancellation of an uncontested copied mark. Accordingly, the Court allowed ITC’s rectification petition and applied precedents on unrebutted non-use and abandonment.
Also read Delhi High Court Directs CGHS to Reimburse ₹5.80 Lakh for Unlisted Cardiac Surgery
Briefly, ITC Limited and ITC Hotels Limited had filed the rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the impugned mark on the ground that it was nearly identical and deceptively similar to their prior registered trademark ‘BUKHARA’. ITC’s ‘BUKHARA’ mark has been in continuous use for over four and a half decades and was declared a well-known trademark by the Delhi High Court in November 2022.
The impugned mark was applied for on 22 January 2019 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis and was registered on 21 July 2019 in respect of services including sweets, grill foods, food and drink, temporary accommodation, hotel, restaurant, motel, inn, room services, catering, coffee and tea home, and bar services.
The proprietor’s trademark agent responded to the court’s notice by email dated 26 February 2026, stating that the mark was never commercially exploited for any substantial or commercial gain, that the limited temporary use during the COVID-19 period resulted in financial loss, and that such use was discontinued immediately thereafter and had not been resumed. The agent further stated that the proprietor did not intend to adopt, use, apply for, or otherwise deal with the mark in future and was willing to formally withdraw and permanently relinquish any usage.
Also read Liability Under Continuing Guarantee Subsisted Until Discharge Of Outstanding Debt: NCLT
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav noted that the proprietor had been served, while his trademark agent had communicated that the impugned brand had not been commercially exploited for any substantial or commercial gain. The agent stated that its limited, temporary use during the COVID-19 period resulted in financial loss, following which use was discontinued and never resumed. The proprietor also expressed that he did not intend to adopt, use, apply for or otherwise deal with the mark in future and was willing to permanently relinquish its use.
The Court reiterated that, where a registered proprietor does not file a reply despite service, the averments in a rectification petition remain unrebutted and are deemed admitted. It also relied on precedents directing removal of marks where non-use or abandonment remained undisputed.
