Rajasthan High Court: Registrar Cannot Remove Trademark Without Serving Notice

In a key ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has declared that a registered trademark cannot be removed from the Trade Marks Register without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court criticized the Registrar of Trademarks for removing a mark without serving Notice O-3, as required under Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.


⚖️ What the Court Said

Justice Uma Shanker Vyas held that:

  • Issuing notice is mandatory before deleting any trademark.
  • Even if a renewal application is not filed, removal cannot happen without prior warning.
  • The Registrar’s duty is to comply with Section 25(3) and Rule 58.

The Court concluded that failure to issue Notice O-3 violates the rights of trademark holders. It set aside the removal and ordered the restoration of the trademark.


📌 Case Background

The petitioner held a valid trademark that had expired over seven years ago. However, they did not receive any notice from the Registry before the mark was deleted.

The Registrar acted unilaterally, without following the legal process. This prompted the petitioner to challenge the move in court.


📘 Legal Position: Section 25 and Rule 58

  • Section 25(1): Trademark registration is valid for ten years.
  • Section 25(3): Registrar must serve notice before removal if renewal is not filed.
  • Rule 58: Requires the issuance of Notice O-3 at least one month before expiry.

If the Registrar skips this process, the removal becomes illegal. This ruling follows the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in a similar case.


⚠️ Disclaimer:

This article is for informational purposes only. It is based on official legal documents and public court records. It does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an intellectual property lawyer for case-specific guidance.

VCARE InfoTech Renames Itself as “Newgen IT Technologies,” Faces Legal Action from Newgen Software Over Trademark Infringement

In a significant development in the realm of intellectual property rights, VCARE InfoTech has found itself entangled in a legal dispute after rebranding itself as “Newgen IT Technologies,” despite being aware of the registered trademark held by Newgen Software Technologies Limited. The Delhi-based software solutions firm initiated legal proceedings, leading to the court granting an interim injunction against the use of the infringing name.

Trademark Dispute Sparks Legal Action

The conflict began when VCARE InfoTech, during the course of a business partnership, decided to change its corporate identity to “Newgen IT Technologies.” According to court documents, the company was fully aware of Newgen Software’s established brand identity and registered trademarks in the technology and software sectors.

Newgen Software, a globally recognized digital transformation solutions provider with decades of market presence, argued that the renaming constituted deliberate trademark infringement and was likely to cause confusion among customers, clients, and partners. The company filed a suit before a competent court seeking immediate injunctive relief to prevent VCARE from using the name.

Court Grants Interim Injunction

After examining the facts and submissions from both sides, the court ruled in favor of Newgen Software. It noted that VCARE InfoTech’s adoption of a deceptively similar name not only violated trademark laws but also indicated dishonest intent, especially since the company had acknowledged the plaintiff’s rights in the mark “Newgen.”

The court emphasized that trademark law protects both brand reputation and consumer interest, and such usage could mislead stakeholders into believing there was an association or endorsement by Newgen Software.

In its interim order, the court restrained VCARE InfoTech from using the name “Newgen IT Technologies” in any form—whether as part of its corporate identity, marketing materials, or domain names—until final adjudication of the case.

Acknowledgment of Trademark Proves Costly

One of the most critical aspects of the court’s reasoning was that VCARE InfoTech had prior knowledge of the “Newgen” trademark and its association with Newgen Software. This undermined any defense of unintentional infringement. Legal experts opined that this could amount to “willful infringement,” which may attract stringent penalties under Indian intellectual property law.

“Awareness of a registered trademark followed by the adoption of a deceptively similar name can significantly weaken the defense in any trademark case,” said an IP law expert based in Delhi. “Courts are generally inclined to protect well-established brands, especially when the risk of confusion is high.”

Implications for Business Partnerships and Rebranding

This case also underscores the need for due diligence during corporate rebranding, particularly during mergers, acquisitions, or partnerships. Businesses are advised to conduct comprehensive trademark clearance searches and seek legal opinions before adopting new names that may conflict with existing intellectual property.

Failure to do so can not only result in costly legal battles but also damage business reputation and operations, especially if a court-ordered injunction halts the use of a newly adopted identity.

Way Forward

The case is still pending final resolution. VCARE InfoTech, now legally barred from using the name “Newgen IT Technologies,” has yet to publicly respond to the court’s decision. Newgen Software, meanwhile, reiterated its commitment to protecting its intellectual property and maintaining brand integrity.

This legal episode serves as a critical reminder for businesses navigating the complex space of branding and trademarks: awareness of an existing mark does not excuse its infringement—and may, in fact, make matters worse.

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief to Burger Singh in Trademark Infringement Dispute

In a significant development for brand protection in India’s fast-food industry, the Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to homegrown quick-service restaurant chain Burger Singh in a trademark infringement case. The court’s order restrains a former franchisee from continuing to use the company’s trademark following the termination of their business relationship.

Background of the Dispute

The legal action was initiated by Tipping Mr Pink Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of Burger Singh, after it discovered that one of its former franchisees in Patna, Bihar, continued operating under the “Burger Singh” name and associated branding, even after the franchise agreement was terminated.

The plaintiff alleged that the unauthorized use of its registered trademark and distinctive branding elements, including logos and packaging, was causing confusion among customers and harming the brand’s reputation. The company claimed this constituted trademark infringement and passing off.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

The Delhi High Court, after reviewing the documents and hearing initial arguments, found merit in the plaintiff’s claim and issued an interim injunction. The court directed the former franchisee to immediately cease the use of the “Burger Singh” mark or any deceptively similar brand name, logos, or signage until the final adjudication of the matter.

The order was passed by Justice Sanjeev Narula, who stated that prima facie evidence suggested that the continued use of the brand by the ex-franchisee could mislead the public and unjustly exploit the goodwill and market recognition of the original brand.

Legal Counsel and Representation

Burger Singh was represented by Advocate Jayant Kumar, who argued that allowing the former franchisee to operate under the same name post-termination would undermine the integrity of the trademark system and violate the terms of the franchise agreement.

The legal team also emphasized that continued misuse of the brand identity posed a risk of irreparable harm, especially in an industry where consumer loyalty is deeply tied to brand perception and consistency.

Impact and Industry Significance

This interim relief reinforces the rights of franchisors in India to protect their intellectual property, even after a franchise agreement has ended. The order sends a strong signal to franchisees about the legal risks of unauthorized brand use and the importance of adhering to contractual obligations.

The judgment is expected to set a precedent for similar disputes, particularly as the Indian food and beverage sector witnesses rapid expansion through franchising models. It also underlines the importance of trademark registration and enforcement as key tools in brand management.

What Lies Ahead

The case will now proceed to the next phase, where the court will hear further arguments, review contractual documentation, and assess damages, if any. The outcome of the full trial will determine whether a permanent injunction is warranted and if the plaintiff is entitled to any compensatory relief.

Meanwhile, Burger Singh continues to operate more than 100 outlets across India and abroad, and the company has reiterated its commitment to maintaining brand integrity through strict legal compliance and oversight.

Himachal Pradesh High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against P&G in Patent Infringement Case

In a significant development in an ongoing intellectual property dispute, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has declined to quash a First Information Report (FIR) filed against multinational consumer goods giant Procter & Gamble (P&G). The case involves serious allegations of patent infringement and misuse of proprietary technology submitted under the company’s innovation partnership programme.

The FIR was lodged following a complaint by an Indian innovator who alleged that P&G misappropriated a patented innovation submitted as part of its well-known ‘Connect + Develop’ initiative — a global platform that invites inventors, startups, and researchers to collaborate with P&G by sharing innovative ideas and technologies for potential integration into P&G products.

Allegations of Misuse of Submitted Innovation

According to the complainant, after initial expressions of interest and discussions under the ‘Connect + Develop’ framework, P&G allegedly used the patented technology without entering into any formal agreement, licensing arrangement, or compensation. The innovation in question is believed to be integrated into one of P&G’s personal care products currently in the Indian market.

The innovator claims that the technology submitted was protected under Indian patent laws, and that its usage by P&G without authorization constitutes a direct violation of intellectual property rights.

Court’s Observations and Ruling

While hearing the petition seeking to quash the FIR, the Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that the matter involves disputed facts regarding intellectual property ownership, potential breach of trust, and alleged commercial exploitation. The court emphasized that such complex issues merit a thorough investigation and cannot be conclusively decided at the preliminary stage of quashing.

The court also highlighted that the ‘Connect + Develop’ programme, while promoting open innovation, must operate within the bounds of legal and ethical frameworks, especially when dealing with patented technologies.

P&G Responds

P&G has strongly denied any wrongdoing. In a brief statement, the company said:

“Procter & Gamble remains committed to ethical collaboration with external innovators. We respect intellectual property laws and take such matters seriously. We are cooperating fully with the authorities and are confident that the facts will vindicate our position.”

P&G also stressed that its ‘Connect + Develop’ platform has a longstanding reputation for transparency and fairness, having led to numerous successful collaborations globally.

Implications for Open Innovation Ecosystems

This case has raised broader questions about the protection of intellectual property in open innovation platforms, especially in scenarios where informal submissions may precede formal agreements. Legal experts suggest that innovators should take extra precautions when sharing patented or patent-pending technologies with corporate partners, even under programs intended to foster collaboration.

IP attorney Radhika Menon commented:

“This case underscores the importance of detailed documentation and non-disclosure agreements before disclosing any valuable intellectual property. Open innovation cannot be at the cost of the innovator’s rights.”

What Lies Ahead

The matter will now proceed through investigative channels, with law enforcement examining the chain of communication, documentation, and potential evidence of unauthorized usage. If proven, the case could set a precedent for how intellectual property is handled in corporate innovation programs, both in India and globally.

As the investigation unfolds, the case is being closely watched by innovators, legal experts, and corporates alike, serving as a cautionary tale about the fine balance between openness and protection in collaborative innovation.