Trademarks and non-use: rectification failed where concurrent findings showed use and a wider territorial extent was accepted as practical.

Rectification of a registered trademark for continuous non-use required the applicant to establish, at least prima facie, non-use for the relevant statutory period before the burden shifted to the proprietor. On the concurrent factual findings, there was no absolute non-use during that period, and no perversity or arbitrariness was shown. The suggested territorial restriction on use was also found impractical, and extending user to the whole State was treated as a workable way to avoid artificial boundary disputes and trade complications. The challenge to the mark's continued registration and territorial extent therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the registered trademark was liable to be rectified on the ground of continuous non-use, and whether the territorial limitation placed on the respondent's use of the mark could be interfered with.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the applicant for rectification to establish non-use for the relevant period, at least prima facie, before the burden shifted to the registered proprietor. On the facts found by the authorities below, there was no absolute non-use of the mark during the relevant period, and those factual findings were concurrently affirmed. The Court also accepted that the geographical restriction suggested by the appellant was impractical and that extending the user to the whole State avoided artificial boundary disputes and trade complications. No perversity or arbitrariness was shown in the concurrent findings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the use and territorial extent of the respondent's trademark failed, and the findings sustaining the registration and use were upheld in favour of the respondent.

---