Back
N. SESHASAYEE
HMD GLOBAL OY Bertel Jungin aukio 9 FI-02600 Espoo, Finland, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 to set aside the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the respondent, refusing the application for registration of the trade mark under No.4110705 in Class 09 and consequently direct the respondent to advertise the application in Trade Marks Journal.)
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the respondent dated 13.01.2023, rejecting appellant's application for registering its word mark "Pure Display' under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The solitary ground on which the respondent has rejected is that the word mark of the appellant lacks distinctiveness.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trade mark is owned by a Finnish Corporation, Finland which has registration across the globe and it applied for registering its mark under class 9, more particularly for the following goods 'Mobile phones, smart phones, tablet computers, handheld media players, displays for smart phones, displays for mobile phones, displays for tablet computers, displays f
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....
Distinctiveness of a trade mark must be assessed in its entirety, not by dissecting its components, supporting the Anti-Dissection Rule.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of distinctiveness and acquired reputation in trademark registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The distinctiveness acquired through extensive use and global presence of a trademark should be considered in the registration process.
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.
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 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.
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
