Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA
Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar Of Trade Marks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against rejection of trademark. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments for distinctiveness of the trademark. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 3. court's analysis on trademark distinctiveness. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. decision to allow appeal and set aside rejection. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, (“Act”) being aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Impugned Order”). The Respondent, vide the Impugned Order, refused Application No. 6701235 filed by the Mensa Brand Technologies Private Limited, i.e., the Appellant for registration of the Trade Mark “PRO.FITNESS” in Class 30 (“Subject Trade Mark”) on the ground that the Subject Trade Mark lacked distinctiveness as required under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act.
2. The Appellant is a Company engaged in selling rice-based snack food, rice cakes, crackers, rice crackers, rice crisps, rice thins, cookies, peanut butter cookies, filled cookies, peanut butter cups, chocolate ganache, chocolate fudge, frosting, frosting mixes, cake frosting, rolled o
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
 | ||||||
| ||||||
 | ||||||
 |
Distinctiveness of a trade mark must be assessed in its entirety, not by dissecting its components, supporting the Anti-Dissection Rule.
The distinctiveness acquired through extensive use and global presence of a trademark should be considered in the registration process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a mark cannot be dissected into its individual parts while examining its entitlement to registration, and the distinction between lack of dist....
The main legal point established is that a mark should be viewed as a whole and not in parts when determining its distinctiveness under Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
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(....
Common phrases lack distinctiveness under trade mark law, but may be registered if they can show acquired distinctiveness through usage.
A composite trademark should be evaluated in its entirety, as dissection can overlook its distinctive commercial identity.
The commercial impression of a composite trademark is created by the mark as a whole, not by its component parts. The word 'PREMIER' was commonly used in conjunction with sporting leagues and had acq....
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
