FieldMarshal Trademark Dispute Delhi HC: Court Bars Both Sides From Using Mark

In an unusual and closely watched ruling, the Delhi High Court has restrained both rival claimants in the long-running “FieldMarshal” trademark dispute from using the mark on centrifugal pumps.

The Division Bench, deciding a conflict that has spanned nearly five decades, barred both PM Diesels and Thukral Mechanical Works from using “FieldMarshal” in relation to their pump products.

Setting aside a lower court’s order that had cancelled the trademark registration on grounds of non-use, the High Court held that continued use by either side was likely to cause confusion in the market. The Court noted historical fault on both sides and concluded that neither deserved exclusive rights.

The FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC ruling has effectively rendered the mark unusable for its core product segment, marking a rare outcome in Indian trademark litigation.

A Trademark Conflict That Began in the 1960s

The roots of the FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC case trace back to 1965, when the “FieldMarshal” mark was first registered for use on centrifugal pumps.

Over the years, two parallel claims emerged:

• Thukral Mechanical Works asserted rights as a prior user of the mark.

• PM Diesels claimed rights as a registered user under the trademark register.

Both parties continued using “FieldMarshal” on their products for decades, leading to overlapping market presence and recurring legal disputes.

Litigation between the parties passed through multiple forums, including civil courts and trademark authorities, without achieving final resolution.

By the time the matter reached the Division Bench, it had become one of the longest-running trademark disputes in the industrial goods sector.

Dispute Over Registration, Use, and Prior Rights

At the heart of the controversy lay two competing legal claims.

PM Diesels relied primarily on:

• The original registration of “FieldMarshal” in 1965

• Its status as a registered user

• Entries in the trademark register

Thukral Mechanical Works, on the other hand, emphasised:

• Prior and continuous commercial use

• Market recognition of its products

• Claims of goodwill built over decades

Under Indian trademark law, registration provides statutory rights, but prior use can prevail in certain circumstances.

The FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC proceedings required the Court to examine how these competing principles applied to a complex factual history.

Lower Court’s Cancellation Order and Its Impact

Before reaching the Division Bench, the matter was decided by a single judge of the High Court.

The single judge had cancelled the trademark registration on the ground of non-use, holding that the mark had not been sufficiently used in accordance with statutory requirements.

This cancellation favoured the prior user claim and weakened the position of the registered proprietor.

However, the order did not resolve the larger issue of market confusion and competing claims. Instead, it intensified the dispute, prompting appeals by the affected party.

The cancellation order became a central issue in the FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC appeal.

Division Bench Reverses Cancellation of Registration

The Division Bench examined whether the cancellation of the 1965 registration was legally justified.

After reviewing the record, the Court held that:

• The finding of non-use was not conclusively established.

• Historical material showed intermittent and disputed usage.

• The circumstances did not warrant outright cancellation.

On this basis, the Bench set aside the cancellation order.

However, restoring the registration did not translate into granting exclusive rights to either party. Instead, the Court moved towards a more balanced solution.

This approach shaped the final outcome of the FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC case.

Finding Confusion and Fault on Both Sides

A key feature of the judgment is the Court’s assessment of market confusion.

The Bench observed that:

• Both companies had used “FieldMarshal” for similar products.

• Consumers were likely to associate the mark with multiple sources.

• Decades of parallel use had diluted distinctiveness.

The Court also found fault on both sides, noting that:

• Neither party had taken decisive steps to resolve the conflict earlier.

• Prolonged coexistence contributed to uncertainty.

• Both benefited from ambiguity in the marketplace.

In this context, granting exclusive rights to either party was seen as unjustified.

The FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC ruling reflects this assessment of shared responsibility.

Court’s Decision to Restrain Both Parties

Instead of declaring a clear winner, the High Court adopted a rare remedial approach.

It directed that:

• Neither PM Diesels nor Thukral Mechanical Works may use “FieldMarshal” on centrifugal pumps.

• Continued use by either party would be restrained.

• The restriction applies to the core product segment at issue.

This effectively means that the mark cannot be used commercially by either side in the relevant market.

Such “mutual restraint” orders are uncommon in trademark litigation, where courts usually uphold either registration or prior use.

The FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC judgment stands out for this balanced but restrictive outcome.

Legal Reasoning Behind the Mutual Restraint

The Division Bench explained that trademark law serves two main purposes:

• Protecting legitimate commercial interests

• Preventing consumer confusion

In this case, the Court found that:

• Exclusive protection would mislead consumers.

• Shared historical use had eroded source identification.

• Continued use by either party would perpetuate confusion.

Given these factors, restraining both parties was viewed as the most equitable solution.

The Bench emphasised that trademark rights are not absolute and must operate within the framework of fairness and public interest.

This reasoning forms the foundation of the FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC ruling.

Impact on the “FieldMarshal” Brand

The immediate consequence of the judgment is that “FieldMarshal” has become unusable for centrifugal

pumps.

For both companies, this means:

• Rebranding of affected products

• Modification of packaging and marketing material

• Loss of legacy brand recognition

The decision effectively ends the commercial life of the mark in its traditional segment, despite its long history.

In practical terms, the ruling transforms a once-prominent industrial trademark into a legally restricted asset.

Significance in Indian Trademark Jurisprudence

The FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC judgment is significant for several reasons.

First, it highlights the risks of prolonged unresolved disputes. Decades of parallel use weakened both parties’ claims.

Second, it demonstrates that courts may prioritise consumer clarity over proprietary claims.

Third, it shows that restoration of registration does not automatically guarantee exclusive rights.

The ruling illustrates that trademark law is not limited to mechanical application of statutes but involves contextual evaluation.

Balancing Prior Use and Registration

One of the underlying themes of the case is the tension between prior use and statutory registration.

Indian courts have traditionally recognised that:

• Prior use can trump registration in appropriate cases.

• Registration offers strong but rebuttable protection.

In the FieldMarshal dispute, neither principle could decisively prevail.

The Court found that:

• Prior use was contested and inconsistent.

• Registration was weakened by historical conduct.

This deadlock contributed to the final outcome of mutual restraint.

Market Confusion and Public Interest

The judgment places strong emphasis on consumer protection.

The Court noted that trademark law ultimately serves the public by ensuring that:

• Goods can be traced to a single source.

• Quality and accountability are identifiable.

• Deception is minimised.

In the FieldMarshal case, decades of shared use meant that consumers could not reliably associate the mark with one manufacturer.

The FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC ruling reflects the view that such confusion is incompatible with trademark protection.

A Rare Example of “No-Use” Remedy

Cases where courts bar all parties from using a mark are relatively rare.

Such remedies are typically adopted when:

• Rights are irreparably entangled.

• Evidence is inconclusive.

• Long-term misuse has occurred.

By choosing this path, the Delhi High Court aimed to bring finality to a protracted dispute.

The decision prevents further litigation over the same mark and forces parties to move forward under new branding strategies.

Ending a Half-Century of Litigation

With this ruling, the High Court has effectively closed a chapter that began in the mid-20th century.

The FieldMarshal trademark dispute Delhi HC case had consumed judicial time and commercial resources for decades.

By imposing mutual restraint, the Court has:

• Resolved competing claims in one stroke.

• Prevented future conflicts over the same mark.

• Encouraged commercial certainty.

The judgment represents an effort to achieve closure in a dispute that had resisted conventional resolution.

Broader Context: Trademark Enforcement in India

The ruling comes at a time when Indian courts are increasingly focused on:

• Preventing brand dilution

• Addressing legacy disputes

• Ensuring market transparency

As competition intensifies in manufacturing and industrial sectors, trademark conflicts are becoming more complex.

The FieldMarshal case demonstrates how historical arrangements can create long-term legal uncertainty if not resolved early.

A Balanced but Unusual Resolution

The Delhi High Court’s decision reflects a pragmatic approach to an intractable dispute.

Rather than favouring one side, the Court chose to prioritise:

• Market clarity

• Consumer interest

• Judicial finality

By restraining both parties, it avoided legitimising decades of contested conduct.

The Delhi HC ruling in the FieldMarshal trademark dispute thus stands as a distinctive example of judicial balancing in intellectual property law.

When Long Disputes Lead to Lost Rights

The High Court’s ruling in the FieldMarshal case underscores the consequences of unresolved trademark conflicts.

After nearly 50 years of parallel use and litigation, neither party emerged with enforceable rights. Instead, both lost the ability to use the mark.

The Delhi HC judgment in the FieldMarshal trademark dispute reinforces that trademark protection depends not only on registration or history, but also on consistent, lawful, and exclusive use.

By bringing an end to a half-century dispute through mutual restraint, the Court has delivered finality, even at the cost of extinguishing a once-valued brand.