Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
PM Franchise Brands, LLC – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark application details and objections. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. registrar's reasons for rejecting the trademark. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's decision on trademark registration. (Para 7) |
| 4. conclusion and order for trademark registration. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 25th April, 2019, passed by the Registrar of Trademarks read along with the Statement of Grounds dated 11th July, 2019, rejecting the Appellant's trademark application. The details of the said mark are as under:
| Mark | Application No. | Application Date | Class | Applicant |
 | 2579906 | 14th August, 2013 | 30 For pretzels, pretzel bites and pretzel dogs and rice, tapioca, sago, flour and preparations made from cereals, com, com flakes, flour milling products, bread, pastry, confectionery, biscuits, crackers, cookies, vegetarian wraps, honey treacle, yeast, baking- powder, salt, mustard, vinegar, sauces (condiments), spices | PM Franchise Brands, LLC |
3. The marks cited by the Registry for refusing the registration of the Appellant's mark are as under:
| Appl. No. | Class | Conflicting Mark | Journal No | ||
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 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....
A trademark may acquire distinctiveness through extensive use, enabling registration even if it includes common terms, preventing undue blocking of competition.
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.
Registration of a trademark may be refused if similar existing marks are present unless prior registrations are adequately considered.
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 emphasized that existing trademarks and their reputation must be considered when assessing the registration of similar marks, highlighting the importance of established goodwill.
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....
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.
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
