*

%

+

J U D G M E N T

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the impugned order dated 21.05.2025 passed by the respondent/the Registrar of Trade Marks, in application no.6087367 filed by the appellant.

2. Shorn off all unnecessary details, the facts germane to the present dispute, are as under:

a. The appellant filed a trademark application no.6087367 for the mark KAMA CASA (word) in Classes 20 and 35 on a ‘Proposed to be used basis’ on 29.08.2023. Subsequently, vide the examination report dated 19.10.2023, the Trade Marks Registry raised objections under Section 11(a) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “the Act”). Pursuant thereto, the appellant filed its response dated 27.10.2023 to the Examination Report issued by the respondent.

b. On 24.07.2024, the first hearing notice was served upon the appellant scheduling the date of hearing on 01.10.2024, to which the appellant filed an application under Form TM-M seeking extension of time, which was allowed. Similarly, various other hearing notices were served, however, the hearing was adjourned for some reason or the other.

c. Finally, by the fourth hearing notice dated 04.03.2025, the hearing was scheduled on 15.04.2025. The counsel for the appellant had appeared on 15.04.2025 and addressed arguments. Vide the impugned order dated 21.05.2025, the respondent recorded its refusal of the trademark application filed by the appellant.

d. The present appeal has been filed against the said impugned order.

3. In order to make good his submissions, Mr. Rohan Rohatgi, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fundamental flaw committed by the Registrar lies in comparing the composite mark “KAMA CASA” of the appellant with two separate and distinct registered marks “KAMA” on the one hand and “CASA” on the other. He also submitted that the appellant had applied for the wordmark “KAMA CASA”, whereas the two cited marks “KAMA” and “CASA” are both device/label marks. He stated that there is no principle of law which permits the comparison of two distinct device marks with one composite wordmark to refuse registration of the wordmark.

4. Even otherwise, learned counsel would submit that the device marks are to be considered as a composite mark and, to that extent, cannot be made the basis for refusal of registration of the composite wordmark “KAMA CASA”. He stated that a mere visual inspection would clearly show the distinction between both sets of marks.

5. That apart, he relied upon the written submissions dated 03.02.2026 filed by the appellant in support of the contentions raised in the present appeal. Alongwith the said written submissions, learned counsel placed on record a search report of the Trademark Registry running into 19 number of pages. While referring to the said search report, learned counsel emphasized that there are numerous registrations containing the word “CASA” in the same or similar Classes which already stand registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks. He would stoutly contend that in case other marks containing the word “CASA” have already been registered, there is no impediment or rational basis for refusing registration of the wordmark “KAMA CASA”. He fairly admitted that the said search report was not placed before the Registrar for his consideration and has been filed along with the written submission in support of the present appeal.

6. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Registrar of Trademarks vs. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., reported in AIR 1955 SC 558 and judgment dated 28.02.2023 of this Court in Ticona Polymers Inc. vs. Registrar of Trademarks: Neutral Citation no.2023/DHC/001489, in support of the proposition that a mark cannot be dissected into its individual parts while examining its entitlement to registration. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in CA(COMM.IPD-TM) 121/2021 titled “Grey Matters Educational Trust vs