Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court directed the cancellation of trade mark registrations obtained by an individual for the word mark “RAPIDO.” The court found that the registrations, which covered various goods and services, contravened provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, due to the likelihood of consumer confusion with marks already in use by the petitioner since 2015.

The petitions were filed by Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited, which operates under the brand name RAPIDO and provides bike taxi services across India. The petitioner claimed to have established significant goodwill and reputation through its RAPIDO marks, registered under various classes.

The petitioner submitted that the respondent, Mr. Nipun Gupta, had obtained registrations for the word mark “RAPIDO” in four classes:

• Class 39: Transportation services (Trade Mark No. 4459206).

• Class 12: Vehicles (Trade Mark No. 4459194).

• Class 25: Clothing (Trade Mark No. 4459197).

• Class 42: Software and IT services (Trade Mark No. 4459208).

The respondent's registrations, granted on March 2, 2020, were on a “proposed to be used” basis. The petitioner argued that the marks were identical to its prior registrations and covered identical or similar goods and services. It further contended that the respondent’s marks were likely to cause confusion among consumers, creating a false association between the respondent’s business and that of the petitioner.

The petitioner’s RAPIDO brand has been operational since 2015, with registrations dating back to November 2017. The petitioner submitted that it operates in 24 states and 117 cities in India, serving over 10 million customers. Its mobile application, launched in September 2015, has over 50 million downloads and high user ratings on app platforms. The petitioner stated that it had earned revenues exceeding ₹497 crores in the financial year 2022-23, with an advertising expenditure of ₹240 crores for the same period.

The petitioner alleged that the respondent’s actions constituted a dishonest attempt to benefit from the goodwill associated with the RAPIDO marks. It relied on Section 47 and Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking the cancellation of the impugned registrations.

The respondent did not appear before the court or file any replies to the petitions, despite being served notices. Consequently, the court proceeded with the matter ex parte.

Justice Amit Bansal reviewed the petitioner’s submissions and the materials on record. The court noted that the petitioner was the prior adopter and user of the RAPIDO marks and had been using them extensively since 2015. It recorded: “The petitioner is the prior adopter and user of the well-reputed RAPIDO marks, and its earliest registration for the mark dates back to the year 2017.”

The court referred to the “Triple Identity Test” to assess the similarity between the marks, goods or services, and trade channels of the competing parties. It stated: “The impugned mark is identical with the petitioner’s RAPIDO marks and is registered in classes 12, 25, 39, and 42 in relation to identical or similar goods and services. Further, the target consumers of the competing parties are identical.”

The court found that the respondent’s registrations were likely to deceive or confuse consumers, particularly those of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection. It recorded:
“Considering the aforesaid, the impugned mark is likely to cause confusion and deception among the consumers who are ordinary persons of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”

The court also observed that the respondent’s registrations were obtained on a “proposed to be used” basis, whereas the petitioner had been continuously and extensively using its RAPIDO marks for several years. It further noted that the respondent had not filed any reply to contest the petitioner’s claims, which were deemed admitted.

The court concluded that the registrations violated Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits the registration of marks likely to cause confusion or deception.

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitions and directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel the respondent’s registrations for the RAPIDO word mark in Classes 12, 25, 39, and 42. The court stated: “The Trade Mark Registry is directed to remove the impugned mark ‘RAPIDO’ bearing trade mark nos. 4459206, 4459194, 4459197, and 4459208 in the name of the respondent no.1 from the Register of Trade Marks.”

The court further directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Trade Mark Registry for compliance. It stated: “The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the present order to the Trade Mark Registry, at e-mail: llc-ipo@gov.in, for compliance.”

The court disposed of all pending applications in the connected matters.

Case Title: Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Nipun Gupta & Anr.
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 80/2024 with I.A. 31622/2024 & Connected Matters
Bench: Justice Amit Bansal

[Read/Download order]