Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Radico Khaitan Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge of trade mark application refusal (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. appellant's prior registered mark rights (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. remand for reconsideration of mark (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. disposal of appeal and compliance order (Para 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal was filed before the IPAB and has been received by this Court, pursuant to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021.
3. The appeal under section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter `Act') challenges the impugned order dated 11th August, 2020 by which the review petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed. The said petition was filed by the Appellant seeking review of the order dated 06th July, 2018 vide which the trade mark application of the Appellant bearing no. 2387450 for the registration of the mark "EFKAY'S FIVE STAR MYSORE BRANDY" in class 33 was rejected.
4. The said application was filed on 17th August, 2012. Following the application, the examination report was issued by the Registrar of Trademarks dated 12th August, 2013. The Appellant filed its reply to the examination report on the 30th April,
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.
The court ruled that ownership established through an assignment deed prevails over objections to trademark registration based on similarity to existing marks.
The registration of a mark cannot be denied solely on the grounds of descriptiveness if distinctive character is substantiated through existing registrations.
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....
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 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.
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
