Delhi High Court Affirms Order Declining Cancellation Of 'HP' Mark Opposed By 'HP+' Screw Manufacturer
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based screw manufacturer that uses the mark “HP+”, against a 2022 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to cancel Land Mark Crafts Ltd.'s registration for the mark “HP” for identical goods. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, delivering the judgment on December 2, 2025, upheld the...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal by Ganraj Enterprises, a Maharashtra-based screw manufacturer that uses the mark “HP+”, against a 2022 order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing to cancel Land Mark Crafts Ltd.'s registration for the mark “HP” for identical goods.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, delivering the judgment on December 2, 2025, upheld the Registrar's findings and noted that Land Mark's use of the “HP” mark since 2006 was undisputed. This, the court said, made Land Mark a prior user compared to Ganraj Enterprises, which claims to have used the “HP+” mark since 2014.
Ganraj Enterprises had sought removal of Land Mark Crafts' 2007 registration for “HP”, arguing that it was wrongly granted and that Land Mark's claimed user since 1995 was not genuine. Ganraj said it manufactures and sells self-drilling screws under the “HP+” mark and approached the Registrar for rectification only after Land Mark opposed its trademark application and filed a commercial suit against it. Ganraj claimed this legal action interfered with its rights.
The court recorded that Land Mark Crafts holds two registrations for the mark “HP”. The first, issued in 2011, carries a territorial limitation restricting enforcement to Uttar Pradesh. The second, granted in 2018, has no such limitation.
It observed that Ganraj's claim, that Land Mark could not pursue infringement action against it because of the territorial restriction on the first trademark registration, would be decided in the pending commercial suit. It added that merely becuase Land Mark filed a commercial suit is no ground to keep this rectification petition alive.
Rejecting Ganraj's argument that the territorial restriction on the earlier registration should automatically carry over to the later one, the court noted that limits placed on one trademark registration cannot be imposed on another, even if both relate to the same mark.
The Court also agreed with the Registrar that Ganraj Enterprises had not proved continuous use of the “HP+” mark since 2014. The invoices produced for 2015–2017 contained handwritten entries of “HP+,” which the Registrar found unreliable. The court said it saw no reason to interfere with this conclusion.
Clarifying the effect of the territorial limitation on Land Mark's first registration, the court stated,
“The effect of the territorial limitation on TM No. 1566805 (Land Mark's first registration) would only be that Respondent No. 1 (Land Mark) cannot claim infringement of its trademark 'HP' in States other than Uttar Pradesh, if there is a use of the trademark by third-parties in the other State. Respondent No. 1 would however still have available its common law rights of passing off if it can establish prior use, goodwill and reputation in the other States. Thus, the submission of the Appellant (Ganraj Enterprises) seeking a restraint against Respondent No. 1 from using the mark 'HP' outside the State of U.P. is without any merits.”
Consequently, the court upheld the Registrar's order and dismissed Ganraj Enterprises' appeal against the rejection of its rectification application.
Case Title: Ganraj Enterprises v. Land Mark Crafts Ltd & Anr.
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 164/2022
For Appellant: Advocate Ujjwal Bhardwaj
For Respondents: Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak with Advocates Stuti Wason, Vipin Wason and Avinash Sharma along with Sanjay Kr. Pandita, AR for R-1; Advocates Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Himanshi Singh, Sainyam Bhardwaj and Monalisha Pradhan for Registry