The Supreme Court today issued notice in the matter, observing that it will hear the other side. The Court noted that the “YEZDI” trademark was not disclosed in the Statement of Affairs filed during liquidation and observed that if the mark was registered in the name of the company at the time of winding up, it would prima facie form part of the company’s assets. It also questioned the omission of such a significant asset and indicated that the explanation of mere oversight may require closer scrutiny.

The case arose from the liquidation of Ideal Jawa Pvt. Ltd., a company known for manufacturing motorcycles under the “YEZDI” brand, which was wound up in the early 2000s. During liquidation, the trademark was neither disclosed as an asset nor actively protected. Subsequently, Boman Irani, associated with the erstwhile company, asserted independent rights over the mark and secured fresh registrations, which were later used by Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. The Official Liquidator challenged this, contending that the trademark continued to remain an asset of the company in liquidation and its non-disclosure was improper.

The Karnataka High Court, in appeal, had held that the trademark stood abandoned due to prolonged non-use and non-renewal, and therefore upheld the validity of fresh registrations obtained by the private parties. It was observed that trademark rights are contingent on use and statutory compliance, and in the absence of both, the mark could not be treated as a subsisting asset of the company.

Aggrieved by this, the Official Liquidator of M/s. Ideal Jawa Private Limited approached the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has issued notice in the matter and directed that the interim protection granted by the Karnataka High Court, including rendition of accounts, shall continue pending further consideration.