Calcutta High Court Revokes 75-Year-Old TRIUMPH Bicycle Trademark Citing Non-Use in Favor of Triumph Motorcycles

The Calcutta High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in Triumph Designs Limited v. Tube Investments of India and Anr., cancelling a TRIUMPH trademark registered for bicycles under Class 12. The cancellation was ordered under Section 47 of the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, on grounds of non-use, favoring Triumph Designs Limited, a subsidiary of the globally renowned Triumph Motorcycle group.

Triumph Designs Limited has used the “TRIUMPH” mark since 1886 for motorcycles and operates through entities such as Triumph Motorcycles Limited and Triumph Motorcycles (India) Private Limited. The petitioner holds multiple registrations for the TRIUMPH mark in India, supported by extensive use, advertising, and strong sales, thereby establishing substantial goodwill and reputation both domestically and internationally.

The contested registration, owned by Respondent No. 1, Tube Investments of India, was originally granted on September 28, 1950, for bicycles under Class 12. Triumph Designs Limited filed an application under Sections 47(1)(a) and 47(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, seeking cancellation due to non-use. The petitioner alleged that Tube Investments had neither a bona fide intention to use the mark nor actual use for the statutory period of five years or more.

Supporting its claim, the petitioner submitted internet searches and reports evidencing the absence of any commercial use of the TRIUMPH mark by Tube Investments over the 75-year period since registration. The petitioner argued that the registration served merely as a blocking device, preventing rightful owners from securing the mark and impeding its legitimate business interests.

The court acknowledged the international fame and reputation of the TRIUMPH mark, noting its uninterrupted use by Triumph Designs Limited in India for motorcycles. It found no evidence of use by Tube Investments despite the long passage of time, thereby justifying cancellation under both Section 47(1)(a) for lack of bona fide intention and non-use, and Section 47(1)(b) for non-use exceeding five years.

The court emphasized that the petitioner qualified as a “person aggrieved” under the Act, given its extensive use and registration of the mark in a related field. This status entitled Triumph Designs Limited to seek cancellation to protect its commercial interests and prevent unfair blocking of the trademark.

In response, Tube Investments challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that Triumph Designs Limited was not a “person aggrieved” since it had registered multiple unused marks itself, indicating selective enforcement. The respondent contended that the petitioner had no use of the TRIUMPH mark for related goods such as mopeds, scooters, bicycles, e-bikes, tri-cycles, or quad bikes, rendering the grievance baseless.

Tube Investments further alleged that the cancellation application was an opportunistic attempt by a business rival to monopolize the mark, contrary to public interest and amounting to unfair competition. The respondent denied any special circumstances justifying non-use and asserted that the petitioner’s own conduct undermined its locus standi.

The court referred to precedent from Hardie Trading Ltd. v. Addisons Paint & Chemicals Ltd. to interpret the term “person aggrieved.” It held that a party seeking removal of a trademark for non-use under Section 47 must demonstrate a legitimate commercial interest in the mark.

Applying this principle, the court found that Triumph Designs Limited had a legitimate commercial interest due to its extensive use and registrations of the TRIUMPH mark for motorcycles in India and abroad. This justified the petitioner’s locus standi to seek cancellation.

Ultimately, the Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of Triumph Designs Limited, cancelling the 75-year-old TRIUMPH trademark held by Tube Investments for bicycles. The decision underscores the importance of genuine use in trademark registrations and protects established trademark owners from unfair blocking by non-use registrations.

This ruling serves as a critical precedent for trademark enforcement in India, particularly in cases involving long-dormant marks and the protection of well-known brands in related product categories.