Introduction:

In Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited v. Wipro Enterprises Private Limited & Anr., decided on 16 December 2025, the Madras High Court, through Justice N. Senthilkumar, dealt with an important issue in trademark law concerning the consequences of prolonged non-use of a registered trademark, the dispute arose when Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Limited, a well-known manufacturer of fans, lighting products, and home appliances, sought to launch a new line of ceiling fans under the brand name “PREMION” and applied for trademark registration, during the examination process, Crompton discovered that Wipro Enterprises Private Limited held a prior registration for the mark “PREMIO” in Class 11 relating to lighting products, which became a cited obstacle to Crompton’s application, Crompton then initiated rectification proceedings seeking removal of Wipro’s mark from the Register of Trademarks on the ground that the mark had not been put to genuine commercial use for more than five years, Crompton asserted that Wipro had secured registration in 2013 with a claimed user date of 2011 but had never actually introduced any goods bearing the “PREMIO” mark in the marketplace, the petition therefore required the High Court to examine whether mere registration without commercial exploitation could justify continued monopoly over a trademark and whether prolonged non-use without bona fide intent to use warranted removal under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the case thus squarely engaged the principle that trademark rights are not meant to be warehoused but must be supported by genuine trade activity that connects the mark with goods in the minds of consumers.

Arguments of Both Sides:

Crompton Greaves argued that trademark law protects marks only when they are used as badges of origin in the course of trade and not when they remain idle entries on the register, it contended that Wipro’s registration had remained dormant for more than five continuous years and therefore squarely attracted Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, which permits removal of marks registered without bona fide intention to use or marks that have not been used for an uninterrupted period of five years and three months, Crompton produced affidavits from electrical goods dealers across multiple regions of India who confirmed that no products bearing the “PREMIO” mark were available for sale in the market, Crompton further submitted that Wipro had not produced any advertisements, invoices, sales data, catalogues, or product packaging to demonstrate market presence, and this complete absence of commercial evidence strongly indicated that the mark was never launched, it was argued that trademark law discourages hoarding of marks that block genuine market entrants, and allowing unused registrations to remain would stifle competition and innovation, Crompton also highlighted that Wipro never initiated any infringement action or cease-and-desist measures against Crompton’s use of “PREMION,” which further showed absence of any commercial interest in protecting market goodwill in “PREMIO,” on the other hand, Wipro Enterprises opposed the rectification petition by asserting that it was the lawful registered proprietor of the mark and that registration itself conferred exclusive rights, Wipro argued that Crompton adopted a deceptively similar mark with knowledge of Wipro’s earlier registration and should not be permitted to benefit from its own allegedly dishonest adoption, Wipro contended that non-use by itself was not sufficient to warrant cancellation and that Crompton had failed to prove absence of bona fide intention at the time of registration, it further argued that trademark protection is not lost merely because commercial exploitation was delayed and that business strategies and market conditions may influence timing of product launches, Wipro thus urged the court to protect the sanctity of registration and to prevent what it described as an attempt by Crompton to circumvent an existing registered right by invoking technical non-use provisions, however, despite asserting ownership, Wipro did not place any tangible commercial evidence such as turnover figures, advertisements, packaging samples, or distributor agreements to substantiate its claim of use or intent to use.

Court’s Judgment:

The Madras High Court carefully examined the statutory framework and the evidentiary burden under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act and held that trademark rights cannot survive in isolation from genuine commercial use, the Court observed that the purpose of registration is to protect trade goodwill and consumer association, not to grant indefinite monopolies over unused words, the Court noted that Crompton had successfully discharged its initial burden by producing dealer affidavits showing complete absence of “PREMIO” products in the market and by pointing to the long lapse of time since registration, once such prima facie non-use was shown, the burden shifted to Wipro to establish actual use or at least credible preparations for use, the Court found that Wipro had produced absolutely no evidence of sales, advertisements, distribution, or promotional activity, and therefore failed to rebut the presumption of non-use, the Court further observed that Wipro had not taken any legal action to restrain Crompton’s use of “PREMION,” which weakened its claim of market presence and commercial vigilance, Justice Senthilkumar held that mere ownership of a registration without corresponding trade activity defeats the very philosophy of trademark protection, the Court rejected Wipro’s argument that non-use alone was insufficient, clarifying that Section 47 explicitly recognizes prolonged non-use as a statutory ground for rectification, the Court also held that allowing such dormant marks to remain would unfairly block honest traders from entering the market with legitimately conceived brands, the Court therefore concluded that there was continuous non-use of the “PREMIO” mark for more than five years and that there was no bona fide intention to use the mark in relation to goods for which it was registered, accordingly, the Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove the “PREMIO” mark from the Register of Trademarks, thereby clearing the way for Crompton’s application to proceed without obstruction, the judgment reaffirmed that trademark law prioritizes real market connection over formalistic registration and that the register must reflect living commercial realities rather than speculative brand reservations.