$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 3^rd February, 2026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 33/2024 M/S. ADS AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Sahni and Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia, Advocates.

versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhaya, CGSC with Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) challenging impugned order dated 29.01.2024 in respect of Appellant’s Trademark Application No.4997781 in Class 33. Direction is sought to the Respondent to process the application for the mark ‘TAJPURIYA’ and advertise the mark in the Trademark Journal.

2. It is the case of the Appellant that Appellant is a company, which is one of the fastest growing liquor conglomerates in Indian alcohol beverage space and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, trading and selling liquor products. Appellant, honestly and bonafidely adopted the trademark TAJPURIYA in respect of alcoholic beverages and alcoholic preparations for making beverages. The mark is arbitrary in relation to the goods and is inherently distinctive.

3. It is stated that on 08.06.2021, Appellant filed a trademark application before the Respondent seeking registration of the mark TAJPURIYA in Class 33 on ‘proposed to be used’ basis. In the Examination Report dated 24.06.2021, Respondent raised an objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the 1999 Act, on the ground that it was a geographical name and not capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one person from another. Appellant gave a reply dated 26.06.2021, pointing out that Appellant’s mark was arbitrary and distinctive of the goods in question and has no connection with any geographical region. Post the receipt of reply, Respondent issued a hearing notice and after conducting the hearing on 03.01.2024, passed the impugned order refusing registration of the mark in Class 33 inter alia on the ground that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character and therefore, was not registrable owing to the provision of Section 9 of the

1999 Act.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is wholly illegal and is predicated on the perception of the Respondent that the mark TAJPURIYA is devoid of distinctive character i.e., not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from the other. This perception is based on the fact, as recorded in the order, that Tajpuriya is one of the indigenous tribes of Nepal, who have been living in the plains of Terai Region. They also live in parts of India i.e., in States of Bihar, West Bengal, Sikkim, Darjeeling, etc., and alcohol is a must in all religious rituals. It is urged that there are two apparent flaws in the impugned order. Firstly, the ground that the mark cannot be registered under Section 9 owing to the fact that Tajpuriya is the name of a tribe in Nepal and India, where alcohol is used in all rituals, was not the objection raised in the Examination Report dated 24.06.2021. A perusal of the report shows that the objection was that the mark is a geographical name and therefore, clearly the ground in the impugned order goes beyond the objection in the Examination Report, which is impermissible in law. Resultantly, Appellant had no opportunity to contest the ground and file a reply to the same, which violates the laid down procedure as also principles of natural justice.

5. It was urged that Respondent has also failed to consider the detailed reply filed to the Examination Report highlighting that the mark was inherently distinctive and arbitrary to alcohol and alcoholic beverages. Most importantly, Appellant had pointed out that arbitrary marks are entitled to high degree of protection and even where the mark is one of geographical origin, it can be registered if it is used in an arbitrary manner. Appellant also plac