Back
AMIT BANSAL
Navaid Khan – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trademarks Office – Respondent
ORDER
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2023
1. The present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 impugns the order dated 12th January, 2023 (hereinafter `impugned order') passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, refusing the registration of the appellant's device mark `CruzOil'/[IMG] (hereinafter `subject mark'), bearing application number 4449921 (hereinafter `subject application') in class 04.
2. The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out below:
"The mark applied for registration is objectionable under S 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, as it consists of which may serve in trade to designate the kind, intended purpose of the goods or other characteristics of the goods. The applied mark is highly descriptive as it designate the kind and intended purpose of the goods applied for registration. It clearly indicates that the oil is used in Cruz or for Cruz. It is the name of the product. It is not coined nor invented. It cannot be monopolized."
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are set out below:
3.1. On 21st February, 2020, the appellant filed the subject application for registration of the subject mark in class 04.
3.2.
Composite device marks should be considered as a whole for registration, and the statutory provision of Section 9(1)(b) should be interpreted without dissecting the mark into its individual parts.
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 strict adherence to the statutory provisions of the Trademarks Act in determining the eligibility for trademark registration, including the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a mark cannot be dissected into its individual parts while examining its entitlement to registration, and the distinction between lack of dist....
A composite trademark should be evaluated in its entirety, as dissection can overlook its distinctive commercial identity.
For trademarks filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, evidence of secondary meaning is not required. Trademarks must be analyzed as a whole rather than being dissected into common constituent words, a....
A composite trademark may be registrable even if part of it includes a descriptive term, provided it is distinctive as a whole.
The main legal point established is that the mark 'Pure Display' had distinctive character and the respondent's refusal without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard involved a gross vio....
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
