Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Rapido Against Registration Of Its Trademark By Another Party

Roppen Transportation Services (petitioner) submitted that it has multiple trademark registrations for its RAPIDO marks and the earliest registration was in November, 2017. It stated that it was incorporated in 2015 and has a presence in the pan-Indian market.

Roppen stated that its mobile application is available on Google Play Store and Apple Store and that it has been downloaded more than 50 million times from Google Play Store.

It said that it has incorporated tremendous goodwill and reputation under the RAPIDO marks among its customers since its inception. It stated that for the financial year 2022-23, it generated a revenue of almost 500 crores.

Roppen filed the present petitions seeking cancellation of registration of 'RAPIDO' obtained by respondent no. 1.

Justice Amit Bansal noted that respondent no.1 did not file any reply to the petition and thus admitted the averments made in the petitions.

“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 noted that the Roppen is the prior user of the RAPIDO marks. It noted that impugned mark is identical to the Roppen's marks and that the target consumers of the competing parties are identical. It observed that the Triple Identity Test, i.e., identical marks, identical goods/services and identical trade channels was satisfied in the petitions.

The Court was of the view that the impugned mark is likely to cause confusion and deception among the consumers. It stated that the respondent dishonestly adopted the mark to rise upon the goodwill and reputation of the petitioner and to associate itself with Rapido.

The Court thus cancelled the registration of the impugned mark.

Case title: Roppen Transportation Services Private Limited Vs.Nipun Gupta & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 72