Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Jindal Industries Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Mark – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of appeal and trademark application details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. previous orders challenged regarding trademark refusal. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. arguments supporting trademark registration appeal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. court observations on the trademark legality. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. conclusion directing registration of the mark. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed challenging order dated 19th March, 2019 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and the Statement of Grounds of Decision under Rule 36(1) of the Trademark Rules, 2017 issued by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, Delhi on 14th July, 2020.
3. The brief background of the present appeal is that the Appellant filed a Trademark Application bearing No.1522447 in Class-17, for the impugned mark depicted below:
4. The trademark set out above was applied for, by the Plaintiff, in respect of goods falling under Class-17 which are as under:
"Designation of Goods:
PPR pipes, PEX pipes, PVC pipes & fittings, PVC flexible pipes, acrylic sheet, agricultural rigid PVC pipes, HDPE pipes & Co
Trademark applications cannot be refused based on objections that are unsubstantiated, particularly when prior permissions exist and are not recorded by the Registrar.
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 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 registration of a mark cannot be denied solely on the grounds of descriptiveness if distinctive character is substantiated through existing registrations.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Registrar to consider evidence and submissions, as well as the status of cited marks and the dissimilarity of goods and ....
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.
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
