Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Visage Beauty and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trademarks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application details and grounds for rejection (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. proceedings and oppositions noted (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. composite mark can be distinguished (Para 5) |
| 4. directions for trademark registration (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. order disposition and communication (Para 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 27th October, 2020 by which the application of the Appellant for the mark `GLOW-GETTER' has been rejected by the Registrar of Trademarks. The details of the said mark as under:
| Mark | Application No. | Application Date | Class | Applicant |
| GLOW- GETTER | 2881329 | 13th January, 2015 | 3 For cosmetics, beauty care products, skin care products, hair care products | Visage Beauty & Health Care P. Ltd. |
3. Vide the impugned order, the application of the Appellant has been refused under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter "Act"), on the ground that the said mark consists of words which may be used in trade to designate the kind, quality of goods, etc.
4. Submissions have been heard.
5. The mark `GLOW-GETTER' is sought to be registered in respect of cosmetic and be
A composite trademark may be registrable even if part of it includes a descriptive term, provided it is distinctive as a whole.
Composite device marks should be considered as a whole for registration, and the statutory provision of Section 9(1)(b) should be interpreted without dissecting the mark into its individual parts.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the statutory provisions of the Trademarks Act in determining the eligibility for trademark registration, including the ....
Trademark applications can be rejected for descriptiveness and similarity to existing marks, but distinct logos may be registered if they demonstrate unique visual representation.
For trademarks filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, evidence of secondary meaning is not required. Trademarks must be analyzed as a whole rather than being dissected into common constituent words, a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of likelihood of confusion on the part of the public and the principle of comparing composite marks as a whole under Section 11(....
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.
A trademark may acquire distinctiveness through extensive use, enabling registration even if it includes common terms, preventing undue blocking of competition.
A descriptive trademark can be registered if it is proven to have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, alongside consideration of existing registrations and usage.
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
