Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
PRATHIBA M.SINGH
Jindal Industries Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Mark – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of trademark application and rejection. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument on previous registrations and legal grounds. (Para 4) |
| 3. analysis of earlier judgments and their applicability. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. directive for registration and procedural conduct. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion and disposal of the appeal. (Para 12 , 13) |
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 28th May, 2019 passed by the Trade Marks Registry read along with statement of grounds dated 11th October, 2019. 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 |
 | 1787422 | 19th February, 2009 | 35 | M/s Jindal Industries Pvt. Ltd. |
3. The said mark has been rejected by the Trade Mark Registry under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act as also the Emblems and Name (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"9(2)(d)
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....
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 applications cannot be refused based on objections that are unsubstantiated, particularly when prior permissions exist and are not recorded by the Registrar.
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 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.
The impugned order safeguarded the appellant's interest by keeping the contentions on merits open, despite allowing the TM-16 applications.
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 registration of a mark cannot be denied solely on the grounds of descriptiveness if distinctive character is substantiated through existing registrations.
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
