Delhi High Court Refuses To Cancel Fitship's 'FITFEAST' Mark, Says ASR Failed To Prove Standalone Use

The Delhi High Court on 31 August dismissed a rectification petition filed by ASR Market Ventures, the company behind FITPASS, against Fitship Private Limited's registered FITFEAST trademark for its protein snack range.

Justice Jyoti Singh also refused ASR's plea for an interim injunction in its connected passing off suit against Fitship. She held that ASR could not establish goodwill in FITFEAST as a standalone mark. The Bench observed:

“The documents demonstrate that ASR has been consistently advertising, selling and promoting its services under the umbrella mark FITPASS and reference to the mark FITFEAST is scant and not in the manner of source identification.”

ASR had sought cancellation of Fitship's mark under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which empowers the Registrar or the High Court to cancel or vary the registration of a trademark. ASR claimed that it had coined FITFEAST in 2017 for its nutrition and wellness services and alleged that Fitship adopted a deceptively similar mark in 2021 despite knowing about its reputation in the fitness industry.

Fitship's founder Aditya Poddar, however, claimed that he had independently coined FITFEAST after his own health transformation sparked an interest in protein-rich nutrition. Fitship argued that ASR had never used FITFEAST as a distinct brand and that the mark appeared only on ASR's platforms as part of its FITPASS subscription offerings.

The Court examined ASR's documents and found that FITFEAST rarely appeared independently. It noted that the services associated with the mark had never been offered separately and had always been bundled with FITPASS subscription plans.

It observed that “the services have never been offered as standalone services and have always been bundled with FITPASS subscription plans.” It also questioned ASR's inability to produce any invoice showing use of FITFEAST as a trademark. It noted:

“The Court remarked that it was unfathomable that ASR is unable to produce a single invoice under FITFEAST, demonstrating use as a trademark if it has been offering services under the said mark allegedly from the year 2017.”

Further, the Bench noted that ASR had waited until 2025 to apply for registration of FITFEAST, despite claiming to have used the mark since 2017. Fitship had already secured registration of the mark by then.

It held that ASR could not establish goodwill in FITFEAST in 2021, when Fitship adopted the mark. It observed that there was “no material on record, which evidences use of the mark FITFEAST as a standalone mark by ASR indicating that it is a source identifier.”

The finding also affected ASR's plea for an interim injunction in the connected passing off suit. Since Fitship's mark was registered, ASR could seek an injunction only by establishing passing off, which requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage.

Justice Singh held that “no prima facie case of passing off is made out by ASR.” It also noted that Fitship had placed on record a CA-certified turnover statement, invoices, e-commerce listings and celebrity endorsements showing continuous use of FITFEAST since 2021. ASR, in contrast, relied on a single Instagram post to show actual confusion among consumers.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the rectification petition and ASR's interim injunction application. It clarified that its findings would not bind the final adjudication of the underlying suit, which will proceed before the Joint Registrar.