The Delhi High Court has overturned an order passed by the Trade Marks Registry deleting the trademark “MAKHAN FISH CORNER” from the Register of Trade Marks, holding that the decision reflected clear non-application of mind and failure to consider material evidence on record.

A single-judge bench of Justice Tejas Karia emphasized that statutory authorities are duty-bound to pass well-reasoned orders, particularly when such decisions impact the statutory rights of a registered trademark proprietor.

“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 petition was filed by Malkit Singh, proprietor of Makhan Fish Corner, a reputed food business that traces its origins back to 1962. Over time, the family expanded its operations under multiple business names incorporating the word “Makhan.”

In 2013, Makhan Fish Corner sought registration of the trademark “MAKHAN FISH CORNER” for food and restaurant services. The mark was eventually registered in February 2023.

Makhan Fish Co., a separate entity engaged in the sale of fish products, had earlier opposed the registration. That opposition was rejected by the Trade Marks Registry in 2022. Subsequently, after the trademark was registered, Makhan Fish Co. initiated rectification proceedings seeking removal of the mark from the register.

Allowing the rectification petition, the Registry directed deletion of the trademark, holding that Makhan Fish Co. was a prior user of similar marks and that Makhan Fish Corner had failed to establish usage prior to 2013.

Challenging this order before the High Court, Makhan Fish Corner contended that the Registry had ignored vital evidence, including third-party affidavits and Chartered Accountant certificates demonstrating use of the mark since 2001.

It was further argued that the Registry failed to consider preliminary objections relating to the maintainability of the rectification petition and overlooked the fact that the two businesses operate in different classes covering distinct goods and services.

Accepting these submissions, the High Court held that the Registry had neither examined nor assessed the evidence on record and had erroneously presumed that no documents existed prior to 2013. The Court also noted the absence of any analysis on whether consumers of restaurant services overlapped 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 stated.

The Court further clarified that mere similarity of trademarks cannot justify rectification. Authorities must evaluate trade channels, nature of services, and the likelihood of consumer confusion, especially where the competing marks fall under different classes.

Reiterating that the principles of natural justice require not only a hearing but also a reasoned decision, the High Court set aside the Registry’s order and remanded the rectification petition for fresh adjudication. It clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the rival 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