Summary
- The Delhi High Court has clarified that under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, prior users must demonstrate commercially continuous use to prevent registered proprietors from interfering with their trademark rights.
- In the case of Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Kurlon Ltd., the court found Kurlon's sporadic sales invoices insufficient to establish continuous use, thus rejecting their defense under Section 34.
- The ruling emphasizes that continuity is assessed contextually, considering factors like the nature of goods and trading patterns, rather than adhering to a strict annual-invoice test.
- This decision underscores the importance of maintaining comprehensive commercial records for any prior-use claims in India, as isolated or disjointed use will not suffice for
Join the discussion — sign up to comment, upvote, and save articles.