Delhi High Court Reinstates 'Makhan Fish Corner Trademark', Cites Non-Application Of Mind By Registry
The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Trade Marks Registry that removed the trademark “MAKHAN FISH CORNER” from the Register of Trade Marks, holding that the decision was poorly reasoned and ignored important evidence.
A single bench of Justice Tejas Karia said that statutory authorities are required to pass reasoned orders, particularly when they affect the statutory rights of a registered trademark owner.
“It is trite law that a non-speaking, unreasoned or cryptic order passed or judgment delivered without taking into account the relevant facts, evidence available and the applicable law cannot be sustained,” the court observed.
The case was filed by Malkit Singh, proprietor of Makhan Fish Corner, a well-known food business that began operations in 1962. Over the years, the family expanded the business under several names using the word “Makhan.”
In 2013, Makhan Fish Corner applied for registration of the trademark “MAKHAN FISH CORNER” for food and restaurant services. The mark was registered in February 2023.
Another business, Makhan Fish Co., which deals in fish products, had opposed the registration earlier. That opposition was dismissed by the Trade Marks Registry in 2022. After the trademark was registered, Makhan Fish Co. filed a rectification petition seeking removal of the mark from the register.
The Registry allowed the petition and ordered deletion of the trademark. It held that Makhan Fish Co. was a prior user of similar marks and that Makhan Fish Corner had failed to prove use of the mark before 2013.
Makhan Fish Corner challenged this order before the High Court, arguing that the Registry had ignored crucial evidence, including third-party affidavits and Chartered Accountant certificates showing use of the mark since 2001.
It also argued that the Registry failed to consider objections on maintainability of the rectification petition and the fact that the two businesses operate in different classes of goods and services.
The High Court agreed with these arguments. It found that the Registry had not examined or evaluated the evidence on record and had wrongly assumed that no documents existed before 2013. The Court also noted that the Registry failed to analyse whether consumers of restaurant services overlap with consumers of fish products.
“There is no examination of whether consumers of Class 43 services overlap with consumers of fish products and / or commission agency services under Classes 29 and 35. This failure to undertake such essential analysis renders the finding legally unsustainable,” the court said.
The court further held that similarity of trademarks alone is not enough to justify rectification. Statutory authorities must examine trade channels, nature of services and the likelihood of consumer confusion, especially where the marks are registered in different classes.
Holding that a party is entitled not only to a hearing but also to a reasoned order in line with the principles of natural justice, the court set aside the Trade Marks Registry's order and sent the rectification petition back for fresh consideration. It clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the parties' claims.
Case Title: Malkit Singh Proprietor Makhan Fish Corner v. Registrar Of Trade Marks
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 80/2025
For Appellant: Advocates Farrukh Khan, Md. Affan and Tanzeela Farheen
For Respondents: CGSC Nidhi Raman with Advocates Mayank Sansanwal and Om Ram for R1; Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Lakshay Sharma and Kaveri Verma for R2.