Introduction:

In the Delhi High Court case Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited v. Nipun Gupta & Anr. (2025 LiveLaw (Del) 72), the Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, Roppen Transportation Services, and allowed its rectification petitions seeking cancellation of the ‘RAPIDO’ trademark registration granted to the respondent, Nipun Gupta. Roppen, the company behind the popular Rapido bike/taxi services, argued that it had been using the ‘RAPIDO’ mark since 2015, with its earliest trademark registration for the mark dating back to November 2017. The petitioner emphasized its wide presence across India, its popular mobile application, and its substantial user base, including over 50 million downloads from the Google Play Store. The company also pointed out that it had earned significant revenue, almost 500 crores, in the financial year 2022-23, thereby establishing its reputation and goodwill under the ‘RAPIDO’ mark.

Roppen filed the rectification petitions to cancel the registration of the ‘RAPIDO’ mark obtained by the respondent, who had been similarly using the mark in the same domain. The respondent, despite being served with the petition, did not file any response or submit a defence, effectively admitting to the averments made by the petitioner. The Court, presided by Justice Amit Bansal, took note of the respondent’s silence and deemed the allegations of the petitioner to be true. The Court also observed that Roppen had used the ‘RAPIDO mark’ first and that it had a well-established reputation in the market. The Court further acknowledged that the goods and services offered by both parties were identical, with a similar target audience. This led the Court to apply the Triple Identity Test — assessing whether the marks, goods/services and trade channels were identical — all of which were satisfied in this case.

Arguments:

Roppen argued that the respondent had acted in bad faith by adopting the ‘RAPIDO’ mark, intending to benefit from the goodwill and recognition Roppen had built over the years. The Court agreed with this contention, stating that the adoption of the impugned mark was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers, who could associate the respondent’s services with those of Roppen. The Court observed that the respondent’s use of an identical mark in the same business sector was an attempt to capitalize on Roppen’s established reputation, which could mislead customers and harm the integrity of Roppen’s brand.

Judgement:

Justice Amit Bansal, having considered the arguments and the lack of defence from the respondent, concluded that the registration of the ‘RAPIDO’ mark in favour of the respondent was detrimental to the interests of the petitioner. As a result, the Court cancelled the respondent’s registration, reinforcing the protection of trademarks and the prevention of unfair competition in the market. This decision highlighted the importance of maintaining the sanctity of well-established trademarks and protecting businesses from bad faith registrations that attempt to exploit the goodwill of others.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a significant reminder of the importance of trademark rights, particularly in cases where a well-known mark is unfairly appropriated by another party. The decision also highlights the Court’s commitment to upholding the interests of businesses that have built significant goodwill and consumer trust under their trademarks. By allowing Roppen’s rectification petition, the Court sent a strong message that trademarks should be protected against attempts to misappropriate established identities in the market place.