Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JYOTI SINGH
Psychotropic India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the trademark application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the validity of the trademark refusal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's observations on the registrar's non-consideration of submissions. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. conclusion to remand for reconsideration. (Para 13 , 14) |
JUDGMENT :
JYOTI SINGH, J.
1. This appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 91 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) read with Rule 156 of The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’) laying a challenge to order dated 27.01.2025, whereby the Registrar of Trade Marks has refused to register the trademark DISOPIL on the ground that the applied trademark is similar to registered trademark DESOPILL, bearing Application No. 4040407 in Class 05 for similar/identical goods being ‘Pharmaceutical, medicinal, allopathic, ayurvedic and veterinary preparations’.
2. Desirous of getting the trademark DISOPIL registered in Class 05 for its goods being medicinal preparations etc., Appellant filed TM-A bearing No. 5971233 on 08.06.2023. The application was examined and Examination Report was issued on 08.11.2023 raising an objection under Section 11 (1) of 1999 Act cit
The Registrar of Trade Marks must give due consideration to all submissions made by applicants, and failure to do so constitutes a lack of application of mind, warranting remand for reconsideration.
Refusal orders under Section 11(1) must reason rejection of honest concurrent use evidence under Section 12; unreasoned mechanical orders ignoring user affidavits and non-use set aside with remand.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 11(1)(b) of the Trademarks Act to determine the likelihood of confusion based on phonetic similarity and the priority....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of a trademark based on substantial sales and investment, cancellation of a rival trademark, and the influence of medical prescri....
The court established that prior trademark use confers superior rights, emphasizing that mere modifications do not distinguish similar marks, especially in the pharmaceutical industry.
The distinctiveness acquired through extensive use and global presence of a trademark should be considered in the registration process.
The court established that prior use and the potential for public confusion are crucial in trademark registration disputes, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry.
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
