Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Roopak`s Pik And Pay – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trademarks – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant- Roopak's Pik-N- Pay under Section 91(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenging the impugned order dated 30th August, 2019 passed by the Respondent No. 1- the Registrar of Trade Marks (`the Registrar') by which the Appellant's trade mark application No. 2807794 in Class 35 (hereinafter, `the application') has been rejected. The details of the application are as under:
| Number | Date | Mark | Goods in Class 35 |
| 2807794 | 12/09/2014 | ROOPAK'S PIK-N-PAY | Advertising, Business Management, Business administration, office functions, display, exhibition, trading and marketing services in relation to preserved, dried and cooked fruits and vegetables, jellies, jams, fruit sauces, eggs, milk and, milk products, dairy products, dry fruits, popcorns, edible oils, ghee, pickles and fats, coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, rice, tapioca, sago, artificial coffee, flour and preparations made from cereals, bread, pastry and confectionery, ices, honey, treacle, yeast, baking powder, salt, mustard, vinegar, sauces (condiments), spices, ice, atta, maida, sooji, besan, rice, namkeens, b |
The court considered the ownership of cited marks and the absence of third-party marks in the examination report as key factors in allowing the appellant's trade mark application.
Initially rejected trademark application for being non-distinctive was deemed unsustainable due to prior registrations and a no-objection from authorities, clarifying that the outline of a national s....
The use of the outline of the map of India as a trademark is not violative of Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 or the Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
Trademark registrations cannot be denied based on similarity when prior registrations exist, and the use of national symbols must be considered permissible if no objection is provided by relevant aut....
The impugned order safeguarded the appellant's interest by keeping the contentions on merits open, despite allowing the TM-16 applications.
The court ruled that a trademark can be advertised with conditions of limited exclusivity focusing on the composite mark, safeguarding against claim to the individual parts.
The court held that existing trade mark registrations must be properly considered in evaluating new applications, impacting grounds for refusal based on laudatory nature and absence of evidence.
Trademark applications can be rejected for descriptiveness and similarity to existing marks, but distinct logos may be registered if they demonstrate unique visual representation.
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
