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 symbol does not violate trademark laws.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. This is an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter `Act') challenging the order dated 17th September, 2019 passed by the Trade Marks Registry read along with statement of grounds dated 14th July, 2020. Vide the said order, the trademark application of the Appellant/Applicant (hereinafter `Applicant') has been rejected. The details of the Applicant's trade mark application are as under:

Mark	Application No.	Application Date	Class	Applicant
	1856072 28th August, 2009	11	M/s Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd.

3. The said mark has been rejected by the Trade Mark Registry under Section 9 of the Act as also the Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The relevant portion of the order impugned order dated 17th September, 2019 reads as under:

"An application for registration of trade mark consisting of word " Jindal" was filed by the aforesaid Applicant under application No 1856072 in respect of applied goods included in Class -11. The application was examined and examination report containing the objections to the acceptance of application for registration of trade mark was communicated to the Applicant. On the request of the Applicant, a hearing was fixed in this matter. Eventually on 12 February 2018, the application came up before me for hearing and the order was passed accordingly.

The present petition on form TM-M has been filed for review of the order dated 16 February 2018.

ADV APOORVA APPEARED SECTION 9(1) A OBJECTION HENCE REFUSED. THE MARK IS NON DISTINCTIVE.THE MARK IS PROHIBITED UNDER SECTION 9(2) D OF THE ACT.

The request on form TM-M is accordingly Refused.

Sealed and signed at the Trade Marks Registry, Branch Delhi on dated: 17 September 2019."

4. It is the case of the Applicant that it has been using similar marks since 1961 and holds registration in respect of them under various classes including Classes 6, 17, 11. Ld. Counsel for the Applicant further relies upon the judgment of this Court in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 99/2021 titled M/s Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Mark as also in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 99/2021 titled M/s Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Mark to argue that the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 does not prevent the use of outline of the map of India as a trade mark.

5. Heard and perused the record. The order under challenge in the present appeal does not consider the fact that similar trademarks have already been registered by the Appellant in several Classes.

6. The impugned order is completely silent on other registrations which have been granted in favour of the Applicant for identical/similar marks in other classes. Further the Trade Mark Registrar did not take into consideration the no objection given by the Survey of India in favour of the Applicant in respect of the mark in question.

7. This Court had the occasion to consider a similar matter in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 99/2021 where the application was filed by this very Applicant for an identical mark as in the present matter in Class 17 which was rejected by the Trade Mark registry on identical grounds. The Court had observed therein as under:

"13. A perusal of the record shows that the Schedule to The Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 does not, prevent the use of the outline of the map of India. Moreover, vide letter dated 8th February, 1994, as extracted hereinabove, the Survey of India has already given a `No Objection' to the Appellant-M/s. Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd., for use of the impugned mark `JINDAL' with the outline of the map of India, as set out above. Various other registrations which have been granted in favour of the Appellant also show that there are several marks wherein the outline of India has been depicted. Thus, the reasoning given by the Registrar of Trademarks is completely unsustainable. Moreover, the use of the