Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ARIF S.DOCTOR
Entero Healthcare Solutions Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Of Trade Marks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition challenges registrar's refusal of 'entero' mark under section 11. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. order unreasoned; honest concurrent use qualifies for section 12 registration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. non-use rectification under section 47; no jurisdiction in registration hearing. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. must consider section 12; registrar's order unreasoned, ignores evidence. (Para 13) |
| 5. quash impugned order; remand for fresh decision. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
1. The captioned Petition impugns an order dated 19th May 2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the Respondent, i.e., Registrar of Trade Marks, rejecting the Petitioner’s Application No. 6072440 (“Subject Application”) for registration of the mark ‘ENTERO’, ‘’ (“Subject Mark”) as a device mark under Class 5.
2. However, before considering the rival contentions, it is useful for context to set out the following facts, viz.
i. The Petitioner filed the Subject Application on 18th August 2023, pursuant to which a Preliminary Examination Report dated 22nd November 2023 (“Examination Report”) was issued by the Respondent.
ii. The Examination Report raised an objection under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks
Refusal orders under Section 11(1) must reason rejection of honest concurrent use evidence under Section 12; unreasoned mechanical orders ignoring user affidavits and non-use set aside with remand.
Concurrent use of a trademark does not necessitate continuous, uninterrupted use to satisfy legal standards.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act to determine the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic similarity and the priority....
The court established that a composite trade mark must be assessed as a whole for registration, not in parts, and that refusal based on descriptiveness must consider the entirety of the mark.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for distinctiveness of a mark for registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and the need for the Registrar to p....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and the principle of comparing composite marks as a whole under Section 11(....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
