Ardo Medical AG vs. M/s. SDB International and Anr.

The Delhi High Court recently decided a rectification petition filed by Ardo Medical AG, seeking cancellation of the trade mark ARDO Device, subject of Registration No. 4578111, in Class 44, in the name of M/s. SDB International.

The petitioner, Ardo Medical AG, a Swiss company, engaged in development, production, and distribution of products for premature babies and newborns, has been operating under its mark for over 25 years. It uses and owns registrations for its mark in multiple jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, Switzerland, and United States since 2008, and owns and operates several country-specific domain names, along with significant global and Indian sales.

The respondent, SDB International, had purchased goods from the petitioner and its distributors in India, though no formal distributorship agreement existed between the parties. Certain goods remained undelivered despite prepayment by the respondent, for which the petitioner was willing to offer a refund.

In January 2025, the petitioner discovered that the respondent had registered a mark identical to the petitioner’s ARDO mark, and falsely misrepresented proprietorship over it, obtaining registration in July 2020. Believing this to be a typographical error, the petitioner approached the respondent for clarification. The petitioner was informed that its unsold stock supplied earlier was lying with the respondent, and the respondent demanded INR 20 Lakhs to assign the registration of the impugned mark to the petitioner. This conduct revealed an intent to profit unlawfully from the petitioner’s goodwill and demonstrated bad faith and constituted trade mark squatting.

The respondent was unrepresented, and the court proceeded ex-parte. The court held that the petitioner was the prior user of the ARDO mark, while noting the trite law that a prior user’s rights overrides the rights of a subsequent user even though the latter’s mark may be a registered trade mark. The court observed that the respondent’s demand for an exorbitant amount of money and misrepresentation of ownership portrays bad faith and intention to extort.

Further, the court observed that the respondent’s conduct reflected a deliberate act of trade mark squatting and its manipulative tactic undermines the sanctity of the Trade Marks Register. Based on the facts and analysis, the court allowed the petition and directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel the respondent’s registration. The impugned registration stands removed from the Trade Marks Register as on date.

  Ardo Medical AG vs. M/s. SDB International and Anr. [C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 92/2025]

Read the judgement copy here.