Sita Ram Iron Foundry and Engineering Works v. Hindustan Technocast (P) Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Order: 09 July 2025
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2021
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5395
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Introduction
The case raises significant questions of trademark ownership, assignment validity, and the burden of proof in rectification proceedings under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The petitioner sought cancellation of the trademark “BADAL” registered in favour of Hindustan Technocast, alleging fraud and impropriety in the chain of title. The Delhi High Court adjudicated the matter and delivered the judgment on 9 July 2025.
Factual Background
The petitioner, M/s Sita Ram Iron Foundry, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Toka machines, is the registered proprietor of the trademark “GHANGHOR BADAL”, applied for in 2013 and registered in 2017 under Class 07. The petitioner has claimed continuous use since 2002.
The impugned mark “BADAL”, originally registered in 2000 by M/s Jodh Singh Sehmbey and Sons, was later claimed to have been assigned to Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey in 2006, and subsequently to Hindustan Technocast in 2011. The petitioner alleged that these assignments were fraudulent and defective, and that the respondent had wrongly obtained the registration.
Procedural Background
The rectification petition was originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and transferred to the Delhi High Court following IPAB’s abolition via the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, 2021. The petition, filed under Sections 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, arose from a trademark infringement suit filed by the respondent in the District Court, Jind, Haryana, where the petitioner is defendant no. 2. The Jind Court had stayed proceedings under Section 124 of the Act pending the rectification petition.
Core Dispute
The core issue was whether the respondent’s trademark “BADAL” had been fraudulently assigned and registered, thereby warranting rectification. The petitioner challenged the authenticity of two assignment deeds – one dated 25 May 2006 (from the original firm to Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey) and another dated 12 April 2011 (from Iqbal Singh to Hindustan Technocast). The petitioner alleged that the first was self-dealing and the second contained irregularities, including multiple conflicting versions.
Discussion on Judgments
The petitioner relied on Anshul Vaish v. Hari Om, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 664, where fabricated user documents were found to undermine the respondent’s claim. The Court held the user documents to be forged due to references to a TIN number issued after the alleged use date.
The petitioner also cited Gandhi Scientific Co. v. Gulshan Kumar, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 820, and Khushi Ram Behari Lal v. Jaswant Singh Balwant Singh, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6702, to argue that manipulation in assignment records could render registrations void ab initio.
In contrast, the Court relied on Safari International v. Subhash Gupta, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1767, where it was held that fraud must be pleaded with specificity and proved with cogent evidence. Mere allegations are insufficient to cancel a registered mark.
The Court also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in A.C. Ananthaswamy v. Boraiah, (2004) 8 SCC 588, emphasizing that allegations of fraud require a high standard of proof—akin to criminal trials.
Additionally, Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696, and Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, were relied on to reinforce that a plaintiff cannot succeed merely due to the absence of a written statement by the defendant. The burden remains on the petitioner to prove its case.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that no conclusive evidence was brought on record by the petitioner to prove that the assignment deeds were fraudulent. The claim that Mr. Iqbal Singh Sehmbey executed the deed in both capacities—as assignor and assignee—was deemed insufficient, especially as no HUF member contested it. The Registrar had accepted Forms TM-16 and TM-24 supporting the transfer.
Regarding the second assignment to Hindustan Technocast, the Court noted two conflicting versions of the same deed but ruled that a trial-level inquiry was needed to resolve the issue. Rectification under Section 57 could not proceed based on allegations alone.
The Court clarified that the burden of proof lies with the petitioner, even if the respondent does not file a reply. The petitioner must prove its case independently.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the “BADAL” trademark was claimed to have been in use since 1945. Given this, a high level of scrutiny was necessary. The petitioner had not alleged non-use or similarity, and the coexistence of “GHANGHOR BADAL” had been acknowledged by the Registrar.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition, holding that the fraud allegations lacked strong evidentiary support. Disputed facts surrounding the assignments required a trial, which cannot be conducted in rectification proceedings. The long-standing legacy of the “BADAL” mark since 1945 further weighed against cancellation.
Law Settled in This Case
This case reaffirms that rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act requires a strong evidentiary foundation. Allegations of fraud must be substantiated by credible, admissible evidence. Procedural anomalies or the respondent’s silence do not shift the burden of proof. A trademark’s registration enjoys a presumption of validity and long-standing use (such as since 1945) cannot be interfered with lightly, absent proof of deceit or fabrication.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor – Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
