Introduction:
In a significant ruling reinforcing the principles of trademark distinctiveness, honest adoption, and mandatory use, the Delhi High Court ordered the removal of a registered trademark that was found to be deceptively similar to an established sports brand and remained unused since its registration. The judgment underscores that trademark registration is not a mere formality or a weapon for brand squatting, but a statutory right that must be exercised bona fide and in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The decision was rendered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora by order dated 11 December 2025 in Punjab FC Private Limited v. Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited & Another, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 127/2025. The petitioner, Punjab FC Private Limited, a Mohali-based professional football club competing in Indian football leagues, approached the Court seeking rectification of the trademark register by removal of the mark “PFC” registered in favour of Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited.
Punjab FC contended that it had been operating since 2017 and had built substantial goodwill, reputation, and public association with the marks “PUNJAB FC,” “PUNJAB FOOTBALL CLUB,” and the acronym “PFC.” The respondent apparel company, on the other hand, had obtained registration of “PFC” in Class 25 for clothing on a proposed-to-be-used basis, without actual commercial use. The Court was thus called upon to decide whether such a registration could survive when it was deceptively similar to an earlier well-known mark and remained unused, especially when the registrant failed to appear and contest the allegations.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
Punjab FC argued that it is a prior and bona fide adopter of the mark “PFC,” which is not merely an abbreviation but a core identifier of its brand identity. Since commencing operations in 2017, the football club had consistently used “PUNJAB FC,” “PUNJAB FOOTBALL CLUB,” and “PFC” across sporting services, promotional activities, merchandise, digital platforms, and public communications. The club emphasized that it had secured valid trademark registrations for “PUNJAB FC” and its device mark in Class 41, covering training, sporting, and entertainment services, and had invested heavily in building brand recognition and goodwill.
The petitioner submitted that in March 2025, it discovered that Posshusa Apparels had obtained registration of the mark “PFC” in Class 25 for clothing and apparel on a proposed-to-be-used basis. Punjab FC contended that such registration was likely to mislead and confuse consumers, particularly sports fans and consumers of sports merchandise, into believing that the apparel originated from or was associated with the football club. Given the growing overlap between sports branding and apparel merchandising, the likelihood of confusion was real, tangible, and commercially damaging.
Punjab FC further argued that the respondent had not used the mark at all after registration. No products, advertisements, invoices, catalogues, or market presence were shown to establish bona fide use. This, according to the petitioner, attracted cancellation under the statutory provisions relating to non-use of trademarks. The petitioner emphasized that trademark law does not permit parties to warehouse marks indefinitely to block legitimate brand owners or to ride on their goodwill.
A crucial part of Punjab FC’s argument was that the respondent’s conduct demonstrated dishonest adoption. The petitioner pointed out that the same apparel company had earlier obtained registration of an identical “PFC” mark in another class, which had already been cancelled by a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court. In that earlier decision, the Court had found phonetic and visual similarity between the marks and had observed that the respondent’s conduct appeared to be an attempt to unfairly benefit from the football club’s reputation. According to Punjab FC, the present registration was merely a continuation of that dishonest strategy.
On these grounds, Punjab FC sought rectification of the trademark register and removal of the impugned “PFC” mark, arguing that allowing such registration to subsist would dilute its brand, cause confusion, and undermine the integrity of trademark law.
Arguments of the Respondents:
Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited, despite being duly served with notice, chose not to appear before the Court. Consequently, no written submissions or oral arguments were advanced on its behalf. The proceedings therefore continued ex parte, with the Court examining the petitioner’s claims on their merits and on the basis of the material placed on record.
However, from the registration details and record, it was evident that the respondent had obtained the trademark “PFC” on a proposed-to-be-used basis, indicating that at the time of application there was no existing commercial use. In the absence of any subsequent evidence of use placed before the Court, the respondent effectively left the allegation of non-use uncontested.
The absence of appearance and defence also meant that there was no explanation offered for the choice of the mark “PFC,” no attempt to distinguish it from Punjab FC’s established marks, and no denial of the allegation that the registration was intended to benefit from the football club’s goodwill. The Court therefore proceeded on the basis that the respondent had failed to discharge its burden of justifying continued registration of the mark.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully examining the pleadings, evidence, and legal position, the Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition and ordered removal of the “PFC” trademark from the Register of Trade Marks. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora’s reasoning rested on two independent yet interlinked grounds: deceptive similarity and dishonest adoption, and non-use of the mark.
The Court first addressed the issue of similarity. It held that the impugned mark “PFC” registered in favour of Posshusa Apparels was phonetically, visually, and conceptually identical to the acronym by which Punjab Football Club is widely known. The Court noted that Punjab FC had established significant goodwill and reputation in its marks since 2017, and that “PFC” had become closely associated in the public mind with the football club. In such circumstances, use of an identical acronym for apparel was likely to create a false association and mislead consumers into believing that the products originated from or were endorsed by the club.
The Court placed considerable weight on the respondent’s past conduct, noting that a coordinate bench of the High Court had already cancelled an identical “PFC” registration obtained earlier by the same company. In that case, the Court had found that the adoption of the mark appeared dishonest and intended to ride on the goodwill of Punjab FC. Justice Arora held that the present case reflected the same pattern, reinforcing the inference of bad faith adoption.
The Court then turned to the issue of non-use. It observed that the trademark had been registered on a proposed-to-be-used basis and that no evidence whatsoever was placed on record to show actual commercial use of the mark after registration. Since the respondent did not appear to contest the proceedings, the allegation of non-use remained unrebutted. The Court held that non-use itself constitutes an independent and sufficient ground for cancellation under the Trade Marks Act, as trademark rights are premised on actual use or genuine intent followed by use, not mere registration.
Justice Arora emphasized that the trademark register cannot be allowed to be cluttered with unused marks that block legitimate brand owners and distort the marketplace. Allowing such registrations to subsist would encourage trademark squatting and erode consumer trust.
In light of these findings, the Court directed that the “PFC” trademark registered in the name of Posshusa Apparels India Private Limited be removed from the Register of Trade Marks, thereby granting the relief sought by Punjab FC.