Trademark Squatting and Non-Use Cancellation in India After 2026 Delhi High Court Trends

Introduction : For many years, the Indian trademark register had been characterised by an apparent contradiction. On the one hand, there were those who adopted and used marks in the ordinary course of trade. On the other hand, there were registrations on a “proposed to be used” basis which remained uncommercialised but continued to stand in the way of subsequent registrations. The situation is made worse where such registrations remain alive as mere defensive acquisitions or speculation to block the actual adopters.

Judgments relating to rectification in the Delhi High Court in 2026 indicate that this contradiction is likely to be sorted out in the coming years. Although the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has always had provisions for challenging improper registrations, it appears from recent orders that there is a willingness to recognise misuse, bad faith, and clutter of the register as major distortions of trademark policy.

This is important because trademark policy does not intend to create dead wood monopolies but intends to provide for protection to source identifying marks that are being used in trade or which have genuine intention of being used.

The statutory frame

The legal basis is fairly clear. Under Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the grounds for removal of a registered trade mark include when, until a date three months prior to filing of the rectification petition, a period of continuous non-use of at least five years from the date of entry of the mark in the Register in respect of the registered goods/services has expired.

Under Section 57, which comes in addition to Section 47, the trademark may be removed for cancellation/rectification where the trademark should not have been on the register, including where there is public interest or where the purity of the register is involved. The Courts of Delhi have held that both Sections are complementary in the sense that whereas Section 47 deals with private prejudice resulting from non-use, Section 57 also caters to the wider concern of maintaining the purity of the register.

This is important in the context of squatting cases. Not only may a registration be vulnerable due to lack of use, but due to its being on the register, it distorts competition and hinders other legitimate applications.

2026 Delhi High Court trends

Less tolerance for dormant registrations : In Yashasvi Havelia v. Prabhtej Bhatia, decided on 22 January 2026, the Delhi High Court struck down the Class 33 mark “BANDOOK,” following the petitioners’ proof that the respondent had failed to use the mark for alcoholic beverages for over five years and had not been able to acquire the necessary excise and regulatory permissions to commercially utilize the mark. It appears that the lack of manufacturing licences, brand registrations, public visibility, and any indication of trade was taken into account by the Court as strong indications that the registration was without bonafide business reality.

The significance of such reasoning lies in the fact that apart from looking at whether goods have actually been traded, the Court considered the commercial context: the licensing situation, regulatory preparedness, public visibility, and the complete failure of the respondent to move forward in the direction of entering the market.

Absence of the registered proprietor may be deadly : The second very distinct trend has its roots in procedure, but is also extremely important in practical terms. First, in both cases of Yashasvi Havelia and Acko Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra, the Court used the doctrine that where non-use has been specifically pleaded, then the same needs to be specifically denied by the other party; otherwise, it may be considered admitted. The Court referred to Delhi precedents of DORCO and Kiranakart, where the initial burden of proving non-use was put on the challenger, but the matter could still win based on pleadings and evidence, where the proprietor failed to come.

This rule has teeth. The idea of many speculators is that the mere fact of registration certificate gives a certain defensive power. However, the 2026 precedents show the opposite: where the proprietor is not present, does not plead special reasons and explains the use, the likelihood of having the mark removed from the register increases.

Courts are making explicit references to non-use and trafficking and register blocking : In Acko, the Delhi High Court made it clear that the mark was allegedly registered “with an intent to traffic in the trademark and block the Trade Marks Register” and it further said that “section 47 is necessary because the right to use the registered trademark is an economic right and therefore trafficking must be seriously prevented.” It was finally decided that the continuation of such mark would not comply with section 47(1)(b), section 57, public policy and the purity of the register.

This phrase becomes very relevant since it shows a change in the tone used by the Court. The register can no longer be seen as a neutral repository of the paper right.

Bad faith is not an abstract claim anymore : Delhi High Court’s judgment in 2026 also indicates that bad faith is being considered as an actual evidentiary and doctrinal issue, and not just a rhetorical one. In Acko, the Court observed that the use of the mark “ACCKO,” which was similar to that of the petitioner in the field of mobile and accessories by a party “is evidence of bad faith.” The Court relied on Section 11(10)(ii) and precedents such as BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati to restate that “Bad faith constitutes a dishonest intention or conduct below accepted business standards.”

It becomes significant in squatting cases since squatting registrants never characterize themselves as squatters. Instead, their applications tend to be presented as routine applications. However, the use of mark for exploiting the good will of other parties, blocking entry into the market, or even keeping it dormant without any reason could be considered dishonest behavior by the courts.

Purity of the Register has become a living issue for the Court : The cases of BANDOOK and ACCKO demonstrate that in the new rulings the Court frequently refers to the requirement of preserving the “purity of the register.” It is important to note that the notion of “purity of the register” already existed in Indian trademark law; however, its new usage can be regarded as more operative, since filling the register with non-use or bad-faith trademarks is not only an unfair practice toward competitors, but also violates the very essence of the trademark system.

It should be noted that such interpretation can lead to further developments in the area, since “purity of the register” will become a key aspect of policy making.

Non-use case burden of evidence

Another extremely useful takeaway from the 2026 Delhi High Court trend is in evidentiary matters. The petitioners still have the burden of pleading and proving non-use. However, the trend shows that the Indian courts will be ready to consider a cumulative set of evidences rather than requiring impossible proof of negative facts.

Practically speaking, the challengers need to think step-by-step when preparing for their challenge. The evidences could include investigative affidavits, public search, absence of necessary permits, no advertising, lack of website/marketplace presence, and lack of evidence of sale or launch of the registered goods/services. In a regulated market, the absence of necessary licenses/permissions is especially important because it refutes any attempts of proving good faith intention to trade.

For proprietors, the message is equally clear – registration does not mean use of marks. When facing a challenge, the proprietor might have to present evidences such as invoices, packages, sales, advertisements, website presence, necessary permits, distribution and manufacturing proofs.

Implications for trademark squatting

Traditionally, trademark squatting has been defined as piracy of well-known international trademarks within India; however, more often than not, such a practice consists of registering trademarks which are similar to developing marks, warehousing marks in multiple classes for future use, and creating a sufficiently large portfolio for applying pressure on real trademark users later.

The new 2026 Delhi High Court approach implies that this method is getting increasingly difficult to implement in those cases where a paper portfolio is not accompanied by actual use of the trademarks. If the registrant is unable to prove actual use, cannot justify the lack of activity, and apparently has registered the trademark in order to prevent a commercially successful company, the court will most likely revoke the registration.

This does not imply that every un-used registration can be revoked from the very first day. It still takes at least five years according to Section 47(1)(b). However, once this period expires, the attitude towards this practice becomes more critical.

The issue of overbroad portfolios

One aspect of these rulings that has gone under-reported is the threat posed by their effect on the overbroad portfolio filing strategy. Businesses will sometimes seek broad portfolios of class registrations or broad specifications in order to keep options open for the future. This may still be strategically sound in some instances, but only where the business actually has a realistic way forward that is documented.

The concern here is that an overbroad portfolio strategy designed to maximize exclusion rights and minimize use becomes a weakness. In the event of challenge, every class and specification needs to be justified. It could well happen that a business that has used its trademarks defensively ends up with no defense if the portfolio starts to be seen as blocking behavior.

Brand-clearance strategy for start-ups and SMEs post-2026

For start-ups and SMEs, this represents a double-edged sword. On the negative side, the importance of conducting thorough clearance searches is not diminished by the fact that a registration being inactive is enough to cause delays, objections, and expensive legal action. On the positive side, the blocking trademark will no longer be fatal if it appears to be unused or worthless.

Some key elements of a reasonable post-2026 strategy will include:

Survey beyond the Register : It is necessary to check if the cited proprietor is actually using the trade mark in the relevant class, whether through digital marketplaces, on websites, and from corporate and other registers.

Check if the blocking registration is old enough : If the trade mark has already expired the statutory period, then there will be business sense in rectifying it.

Test the industry-compliance requirements : In certain industries like that of alcohol, pharmaceuticals, financial services, or insurance related goods, the lack of licence/registrations will help make a non-use case more credible.

Prove prejudice to your own business : The courts keep requiring a “person aggrieved,” so the applicant must demonstrate that its growth plans have been blocked, applications were held up, there was overlapping trade or commercial injury.

Filing with realism, not theatrics : Start-ups must refrain from adopting the very same approach which they dislike and criticize.

A probable route

From what can be gleaned from the 2026 decisions in the Delhi High Court, Indian trademark law appears to be headed for greater clarity in distinguishing between bona fide brand protection and baseless exclusion. The court does not negate the registration based rights but insists that these rights are anchored on commercial considerations, proper adoption, and integrity of the register.

The effect of such a development would be on how future litigation proceeds. Plaintiffs will present their non-use cases not only as personal issues but also as issues of maintaining the integrity of the register and anti-trafficking policy among others. On the other hand, proprietors would need to keep their uses more accurate and cautious about collecting marks or classes which they do not intend to commercialize.

Conclusion

The trend in the Delhi High Court since 2026 cannot be ignored. The practice of dormant registrations is coming under increased judicial scrutiny, non-use claims left uncontroverted have become perilous for absentee owners, and squatting or trafficking attempts are being treated with judicial antipathy.

To business organizations, the message can only be straightforward. The trademark registration in India is a valuable right, but not one that serves as a parking space. In cases where the mark remains idle, hinders legitimate trade, and cannot be substantiated by any proof of good faith and genuine use, it seems that its protection under the Indian register may well be drawing to an end.

Author: Harsh Verma, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 47 and 57.

2. Yashasvi Havelia v. Prabhtej Bhatia.

3. Acko Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandra Mohan Mishra.

4. Renee Cosmetics (P) Ltd. v. Rupali Sharma, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4593.

5. Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v. Mohammad Arshad & Anr., Delhi High Court, 2025.

6. DORCO Co. Ltd. v. Durga Enterprises & Anr., Delhi High Court, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1484.

7. BPI Sports LLC v. Saurabh Gulati & Anr.

8. Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhaman Choksi, Delhi High Court, April 2026.