Rajindar Sachar, J.

( 1 ) AT the end of argument we announced thedismissal of the appeal. We now proceed to give our reasons for the same. This is an appeal against the order of the learned single judge by which heset aside the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks and allowed the application of the respondent to have their trade mark consisting of the word (SAFIi) registered in Glass 5 in Schedule IV in respect of medicinal preparation under the Trade and Merchan dise Marks Act, 1958 (to be called theact ). The respondents are well known manufacturers of medicinal preparations amongst others of safi a preparation meant for purification of blood

( 2 ). Section 6 of the Act requires the maintenance of a Register oftrade Mark wherein shall be entered all registered Trade Marks. Section 7of the Act says that the register shall be divided in two parts called respectively part a and part b . Section 8 of the Act provides that the trade markmay be registered in respect of any or all of the goods comprised in a prescribed Class of goods. The Trade and Merchandise Marks Rule 1959 have beenframed under the Act. Rule 22 provides that for the purpose of registrationof. the trade mark goods shall be classified in Fourth Schedule. The Fourthschedule in dassification of goods item 5 amongst others. mentions pharmacutical. Medicinal preparation admittedly falls under this class.

( 3 ). The respondents applied for registration of the trade mark consisting of the word safi . Though, originally the application was made forregistration in part a , but as later on it was modified and registration wassought in part b only. We are only concerned with the eligibility for registration in part b of the Register. The Registrar of Trade Mark, however,refused it on the ground that safi was a descriptive work having directreference to the character and quality of the goods and is not inherentlycapable of distinguishing the applicant s goods within the meaning of Section9 of the Act. In appeal by the respondent, the learned single judge, however,took a different view and held that the word safi cannot be held to bedescriptive of the quality or the character of the goods of the respondent andon that finding he granted to the respondent trade mark to be registered inpart b of the register. The Registrar of Trade Mark being aggrieved hascome up in appeal.

( 4 ). Section 9 (1) lays down the requisites for registration in Parts a and b of the register and by Clause D provides that a trade mark shall notbe registered in Part a of the register unless it contains or consists of at leastone or more words having no direct reference to the character or quality ofthe goods. Thus, this is a negative mandate which means that no trade markwill be registered in Part a of the register if it contains a direct reference tothe character or quality of the goods. Though the trade mark was sought tobe got registered in Part b , the discussion before the learned single judgeseems to have proceeded as if the trade mark was being sought to be registeredin Part a of the Register. The learned judge, therefore, only consideredwhether the word was descriptive of quality of goods and having found thatthe word safi was not understood in common use and in its ordinarymeaning as meaning "pure, clear, fine," naturally found no hurdle in respondent s getting registration.

( 5 ). As before the learned judge, Mr. Anand, the learned counsel forthe respondent also tried to convince us to hold that the Word safi is anunusual word, totally unknown in the common parlance and has no directreference to the character or quality of the goods of the respondent. Thoughthe learned judge ultimately held that the word safi is not descriptive, yethe did say that prima facie it could be urged that the word safi is descriptive in character. That the word safi in dictionaries is defined as "pure,fine, clear" cannot be disputed. There is also equally no doubt that it is notthe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document