The court held that the trademark 'PARLIAMENT' is a common noun that does not violate the Emblems and Names Act, allowing registration under the Trade Marks Act.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The present appeals were received on transfer after the abolition of the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board (hereinafter ‘IPAB’) pursuant to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

2. These appeals have been filed under Section 91 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘Act’) challenging the two orders dated 31^st August 2018 and two orders dated 29^th January 2020 passed by the respondent (hereinafter collectively referred to as the ‘impugned orders’) whereby the trade mark applications filed by the appellant have been refused.

3. The details of the trade mark applications which are the subject matter of the present appeals are as follows:

a. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 5/2022

The mark bearing application no. 2736355 in class 30 was filed on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. The application was objected to in the examination report dated 6^th October 2015 under Sections 9(1)(a) and 11 of the Act. The application was refused vide the impugned order dated 29^th January 2020.

b. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 102/2022 The mark bearing application no. 2511784 in class 29 was filed with a user claim since 19^th February 2013. The application was objected to in the examination report dated 11^th April 2014 under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act. The application was refused vide the impugned order dated 31^st August 2018.

c. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 132/2022 The mark bearing application no. 2736356 in class 30 was filed on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. The application was objected to in the examination report dated 6^th October 2015 under Sections 9(1)(a) and 11 of the Act. The application was refused vide the impugned order dated 29^th January 2020.

d. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 99/2022 The mark bearing application no. 2511787 in class 35 was with a user claim since 19^th February 2013. The application was objected to in the examination report dated 15^th April 2014 under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act. The application was refused vide the impugned order dated 31^st August 2018.

4. Notice to the respondent in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 99/2022 was issued on 8^th February 2019 by the IPAB and notices in C.A.(COMM.IPD- TM) 5/2022, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 102/2022 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 132/2022 were issued to the respondent on 1^st March 2023 by this Court.

5. Briefly, the undisputed facts of the present appeal are set out below:

5.1. The appellant is engaged in the well-established business of trading, marketing and retailing of various fast moving consumer goods and food items.

5.2. The appellant bona fidely adopted the inherently distinctive marks PARLIAMENT, and other PARLIAMENT-formative marks including devices thereof (hereinafter ‘PARLIAMENT marks’) in the year 2013. The PARLIAMENT marks have been used continuously and extensively since their adoption.

5.3. The PARLIAMENT marks have accrued tremendous goodwill and reputation and have been exclusively identified and associated with the appellant and its goods and services.

5.4. The appellant has filed various trade mark applications, and have obtained registration, for the PARLIAMENT marks. A list of the appellant’s trade mark registrations/pending applications is provided in paragraph 5 of the appeal in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 5/2022 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 132/2022 and in paragraph 3 of the appeal in C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 102/2022 and C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 99/2022.

5.5. The appellant, in joint venture with M/s Sanjeevani Agro Foods Private Limited, is also the registered proprietor of the mark bearing no. 3612088 in class 29 and 3612089 in class 30.

5.6. The appellant is also the register