- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United States
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
- within Intellectual Property, Privacy, Government and Public Sector topic(s)
The trademark 'YEZDI' along with being a brand name also signifies a relevant time in India's motorcycling industry. It was used for iconic motorcycles since the late 1960s but later became a subject matter of complex legal matters. The journey of this trademark is relevant in showcasing how the Indian Trademark law treats old brands, family claims, company ownership, and long periods of non-use. The Perusal of two judgements, first, Boman R. Irani v. Mirza International Ltd. (2017), before the Delhi High Court where Boman Irani claimed rights over the historic 'YEZDI' mark of motorcycle brand and sued Mirza International for using 'YEZDI' on footwear, alleging passing off and misuse of goodwill, even though the YEZDI motorcycles had not been manufactured since 1996 and second, Classic Legends Pvt. Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd. (2025) before the Karnataka High Court, where After Ideal Jawa was wound up, Boman Irani obtained fresh registrations of 'YEZDI' and licensed it to Classic Legends to relaunch bikes, which was challenged by the Official Liquidator and employees as misuse of company assets, leading to a dispute over whether the YEZDI trademark had been abandoned or still belonged to the company, is reflective of how the law balances reputation, registration, use and fairness of a trademark. This Evolution is pertinent to build an understanding about survival, lapse and revival of a trademark.
ORIGINS AND EARLY RIGHTS- REPUTATION WITHOUT PRESENT USE
'YEZDI' was adopted as a trademark in 1969 by Rustom Irani and used by the company 'Ideal Jawa (india) Ltd.' for motorcycles. It quickly gained significant goodwill, recognition and reputation in the market. Under Indian law, both 'use' and 'reputation' of the trademark matter, even without registration. However, the use stopped when ideal jawa stopped manufacturing motorcycles in 1996. It was Mr. Rustom Irani's son, Mr. Boman Irani who later claimed legal rights over the 'YEZDI' trademark on the basis of family legacy and residual goodwill, However, Delhi high court took a cautious view in 2017 when it reiterated that indeed the mark in dispute had historical fame and significance but it is not sufficient enough to injunct current bonafide active trade. The plaintiff in the case was unable to prove clear ownership or ongoing commercial use, whereas the defendants had a valid registration for footwear, the court refused to stop them from using 'YEZDI'. This was reflective of court's tilt towards protecting present legal rights over sentimental claims based on reputation.
NON-USE, ABANDONMENT AND DEATH OF A TRADEMARK
The hnbl. Karnataka high court further examined 2025 the legal basis and existence of the impugned 'YEZDI' trademark. The court noted that ideal jawa had not used the mark since 1996 post stoppage of their motorcycle manufacturing and did not renew registration of the mark post that. As per the Trademarks Act 1999, a combined reading of s.25 and s.47 are clearly suggestive of the fact that a trademark must be used and renewed otherwise it could be liable for removal or abandonment. The court held that the legal rights in the impugned mark cannot remain uncertain and unclear forever. The three decades of non-use have lead to the lapse of legal rights in the mark. Also, Court rejected the idea that liquidation of the company automatically preserved the trademark as a court-protected asset (custodia legis). This reflects a strict approach of the court that reinstates that trademark law aims at rewarding active use in trade and not mere historical goodwill and inaction by the owner.
REVIVAL ATTEMPTS AND LEGAL CONSEQUENCES
Boman Irani's later attempt to revive 'YEZDI' trademark through fresh registrations and licensing to Classic Legends raised deeper questions of fairness. On one hand, revival served public interest by bringing back a loved brand. On the other, the Employees' Association and Official Liquidator argued that Irani had taken advantage of a company asset. The Single Judge accepted this view, but the Division Bench disagreed. It held that since the trademark had already been abandoned, there was nothing left for the company to own. The Company Court could not cancel Irani's registrations using winding-up powers. This highlights a critical principle: equity cannot override statutory trademark law. Even emotional goodwill or moral claims cannot revive a mark once the law treats it as abandoned and dead. The judgment protects certainty in commerce and substantiates that anyone willing to invest and lawfully register can build a brand anew.
PASSING OFF VS. STATUTORY RIGHTS
The judgement by hnbl. Delhi High Court also shows the difference between 'Passing off' which is a common law principle and the statutory law which grants legal rights. Irani relied on the claim of passing off, claiming rights via residual goodwill and public association and reputation of the mark with respect to the previous motorcycle business. But the Court held that without proof of current trade or ownership, such claims are weak, especially against a registered proprietor of the mark. Meanwhile, the judgement by hnbl Karnataka High Court shows that even registration of the mark by ideal jawa could not survive without renewal and use. Hence, it could be said that the Indian Trademark law requires both, compliance with legal formalities as well as commercial use. Reputation by itself is not sufficient and registration alone is not eternal in protecting and granting legal rights. The law aims to prevent misuse of old fame and goodwill while also preventing hoarding of dead marks.
The journey of the YEZDI trademark reflects the core philosophy of Indian trademark law: a trademark lives only as long as it is actively used, protected, and renewed as per law. Courts have been careful not to let residual goodwill, family legacy, or corporate liquidation freeze a brand for eternity. From the Delhi High Court's refusal to protect uncertain goodwill in 2017 to the Karnataka High Court's declaration of abandonment in 2025, YEZDI's story shows that trademarks are commercial tools, not museum pieces. At the same time, the law leaves room for honest revival through fresh registration and investment. In this balance between memory and market, Indian courts have reaffirmed that trademarks exist to serve living business realities and not just history.
By
Vijay Pal Dalmia, Advocate
Supreme Court of India & Delhi High Court
Email id: vpdalmia@vaishlaw.com
Mobile No.: +91 9810081079
Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/vpdalmia/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/vpdalmia
X (Twitter): @vpdalmia
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
