Allowed

Snap Inc. v. M.K. Switchgeat Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Delhi HC6 May 2024C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)/180/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Snap Inc. to remove the mark 'SNAP' from the Register of Trade Marks. The court removed the mark due to non-use after registration and the respondent's failure to appear or rebut the claims. The Registry was directed to update records.

What did the court decide?

The impugned mark 'SNAP' was removed from the Register of Trade Marks, and the Registry was directed to update its records and supply a copy of the order.

Snap Inc. Vs M.K. Switchgeat Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 180/2021

¶4

SNAP INC. ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Prakriti Varshney and Ms. Aastha Kakkar, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

M.K. SWITCHGEAT PVT. LTD. AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC with Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Mr. Lakshay Gunawat and Mr. Krishnan V., Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶8

O R D E R % 06.05.2024

¶9

This rectification petition was filed by the petitioner seeking removal

¶10

of respondent No.1’s following mark [‘ impugned mark ’]:

¶11

Mark	‘*SNAP*’
Application No.	1251298
Application Date	24^thNovember, 2003
Class	9
User Detail	Proposed to be used
Granted On	22^ndNovember, 2005

¶12

At the outset, it is stated by Ms. Nancy Roy, counsel for the petitioner

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:34:35

¶15

that the status from the Trade Marks Registry dated 05^th May, 2024 shows that the impugned mark was valid up to 24^th November, 2023 and has since not been renewed.

¶16

Be that as it may, the petition has been moved essentially on the ground of non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the petitioner. This petition was initially filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board [‘ IPAB ’] and then transferred to this Court post the abolition thereof in 2021.

¶17

A perusal of the order sheets would show that no one had been appearing for the respondent and only on one occasion, on 01^st August, 2023 before the Joint Registrar, Mr. Varshesh Khurana, Advocate had appeared through VC. It was, therefore, recorded by the Joint Registrar on 12^th March, 2024 that since no appearance has been made and no reply has been filed, the right of respondent No.1 to file a reply stands closed.

¶18

At the time of the filing of the petition, the petitioner had applied for registration of their following trademarks [‘ petitioner’s marks ’]:

¶19

PARTICULARS	PETITIONER’S MARKS
Mark	‘*SNAPCHAT’ ‘SNAPCHAT*’
Application No.	2879330 2881055
Application Date	10^thJanuary, 2015 12^thJanuary, 2015
Class	99 99*
Granted on	14^thJuly, 2017 14^thJuly, 2017
	*9, 38, 41, 42, and 45

¶20

It is pointed out that there is non-use by respondent No.1 of the impugned mark, as has been stated as part of this petition. The petitioner

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:34:35

¶23

has also stated that their mark has been registered or applied for in many countries of the world including the United States of America, Egypt, Hong Kong, Russia, Taiwan, etc. The petitioner has been using its trademark ‘ SNAPCHAT ’ on various operating systems and messaging platforms for use on mobile phones. They are also the owner of the website www.snapchat.com.

¶24

Considering that there has been no bona fide use of the impugned mark since 2005 when it was registered, now lapsed in 2023, as also the fact that respondent No.1 has chosen not to appear or to refute or rebut the statements and averments made by the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, this rectification petition ought to be allowed in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

Accordingly, the impugned mark as mentioned in para 1 be removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

¶26

The website of the Trade Marks Registry be updated accordingly.

¶27

Registry to supply a copy of this order to the Trade Marks Registry at [email protected] for compliance.

¶28

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶30

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶31

MAY 6, 2024/MK/sc

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:34:35

Snap Inc. v. M.K. Switchgeat Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Snap Inc. v. M.K. Switchgeat Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. Vs Verizon Trade Services & Ors.

Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc Vs Asssistant Controller of Patents and Designs

Kaira District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Limited Vs Mars Incorporated, Usa and Anr.

Informa Markets India Private Limited Vs M/S 4PINFOTECH and Anr.

Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Jss Ventures Vs Kunwarpreet Singh Juneja and Anr.