- 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 Trademark Registration For 'RAPIDO' Following Plea By Roppen Transportation Services
Delhi High Court Cancels Trademark Registration For 'RAPIDO' Following Plea By Roppen Transportation Services
The Delhi High Court has allowed rectification petitions filed by Roppen Transportation Services, the operator of the Rapido bike and taxi services, seeking the cancellation of trademark registrations for the 'RAPIDO' mark held by another party.
Roppen argued that it has multiple trademark registrations for the RAPIDO mark, with the earliest dating back to November 2017. The company, incorporated in 2015, highlighted its nationwide presence and significant market reach. It noted that its mobile application is available on both Google Play Store and Apple Store, with over 50 million downloads on Google Play Store alone. Roppen also stated that it has built considerable goodwill and reputation under the RAPIDO mark, generating revenue of nearly ₹500 crores in the financial year 2022-23.
The petitions sought the cancellation of the 'RAPIDO' trademark registered by the respondent, identified as respondent no. 1.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the respondent failed to file a reply to the petitions, effectively admitting the claims made by Roppen. “The respondent no. 1 has not filed his reply to the present petitions, which indicates that he has nothing substantial to put forth on merits, by way of a response to the averments made in the petitions. In view of the above, the averments made in the petitions are deemed to be admitted,” the Court stated.
The Court determined that Roppen was the prior user of the RAPIDO mark and found the impugned mark to be identical. Applying the Triple Identity Test—identical marks, goods/services, and trade channels—it concluded that the respondent’s mark was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers. The Court also noted that the respondent had dishonestly adopted the mark to capitalize on Roppen’s goodwill and reputation.
Consequently, the Court ordered the cancellation of the impugned trademark registration, safeguarding Roppen's rights to the RAPIDO brand.