Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Modicare Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trademarks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark application details and objections (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding the distinctiveness of the mark (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's observations on usage and trademark registration (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. conditions for advertisement and registration (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of the appeal (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal under section 91(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter "Act") has been filed by the Appellant challenging the impugned order dated 26th February, 2021 passed by the Registrar of Trademarks rejecting the Appellant's application for the registration of trademark `SALON PROFESSIONAL' in Class 3. Objection has been raised by the Registry under sections 9(1)(b) of the Act on the ground that the mark consists of words which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, intended purpose and other characteristics of the goods. The application has further been objected to under section 11(1)(b) of the Act on the ground of similarity of mark and goods covered, in relation to an earlier trademark.
3. The Appellant is one of India's
A trademark may acquire distinctiveness through extensive use, enabling registration even if it includes common terms, preventing undue blocking of competition.
Registration of a trademark may be refused if similar existing marks are present unless prior registrations are adequately considered.
Trademark applications can be rejected for descriptiveness and similarity to existing marks, but distinct logos may be registered if they demonstrate unique visual representation.
Trademark registration requires distinctiveness, and the use of a house mark can aid in overcoming refusals based on identical marks.
The court emphasized that existing trademarks and their reputation must be considered when assessing the registration of similar marks, highlighting the importance of established goodwill.
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....
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.
The impugned order safeguarded the appellant's interest by keeping the contentions on merits open, despite allowing the TM-16 applications.
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
