- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Cancels 'Dolma' Trademark in Plea by 'Dolma Aunty Momos’
Delhi High Court Cancels 'Dolma' Trademark in Plea by 'Dolma Aunty Momos’
The Delhi High Court has revoked the trademark "Dolma" adopted by an individual following a plea filed by the renowned "Dolma Aunty Momos" against its usage. Justice Anish Dayal ordered the cancellation and removal of the disputed trademark from the Trade Marks Register.
Dolma Tsering, renowned as Dolma Aunty Momos since she began selling momos in the national capital in 1994, filed the rectification petition. The plea aimed to annul the "Dolma" mark adopted by Mohd. Akram Khan.
The plea asserted that Tsering set up her initial momo stall in Lajpat Nagar and gained popularity thereafter. Allegations were made that Khan not only appropriated her previously used trademark but also utilized her name with his trademark "Dolma," which was identical to hers.
She sought the cancellation of the challenged mark based on the provisions outlined in Sections 11(1), 11(2), 11(3)(a), and 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The court noted that, since the respondent has neither appeared nor responded to the petition, the petitioner's allegations of non-use remain unchallenged. As a result, they must be accepted.
In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, and after reviewing the documents submitted on record as well as considering the arguments presented by the petitioner's counsel, the Court concluded that the trademark of the respondent should be cancelled and removed from the Trade Marks Register.