Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Jindal Industries Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Mark – Respondent
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 trad
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....
Trademark applications cannot be refused based on objections that are unsubstantiated, particularly when prior permissions exist and are not recorded by the Registrar.
The impugned order safeguarded the appellant's interest by keeping the contentions on merits open, despite allowing the TM-16 applications.
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.
Trademark applications can be rejected for descriptiveness and similarity to existing marks, but distinct logos may be registered if they demonstrate unique visual representation.
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 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 ....
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
