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’) for setting aside the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Respondent.

2. To the extent necessary, the facts as pleaded in the appeal are that the Appellant filed an application bearing no. 5317451 on 07.02.2022 for registration of trademark SIGNATURE GLOBAL MAKING INDIA AFFORDABLE in Class 37 in respect of goods ‘Building construction; repair; installation services’ on user basis. Application was examined and First Examination Report was issued on 11.03.2022, to which reply was filed by the Appellant on 04.03.2023. After hearing the Appellant, Respondent passed the impugned order on 22.05.2025 refusing registration of the trademark on the ground that the applied mark was visually and phonetically similar to cited marks ‘SIGNATURE’ and ‘SIGNATURE’ with various suffixes for identical/similar goods, recording the submission of the Appellant that the applied mark was not different from the cited marks.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the impugned order is illegal and deserves to be set aside on multiple grounds. The finding of the Respondent that the applied mark was deceptively similar to certain cited marks containing the word SIGNATURE is wholly erroneous and discards the settled principles of Trade Mark Law as also detailed submissions and evidence on record. Appellant is a reputed real estate developer incorporated in the year 2000 and operates pan India. Appellant is a registered proprietor of several trademarks incorporating the element SIGNATURE GLOBAL including in Classes 36 and 37.

4. Respondent has erred in holding that there is visual and phonetic similarity between the applied and the cited marks overlooking that the applied mark is a composite, coined and distinctive mark comprising the terms SIGNATURE GLOBAL AND MAKING INDIA AFFORDABLE in a stylised device format with a unique colour scheme and artistic logo representing the letters ‘S’ and ‘G’ intertwined and cannot be dissected for comparison for determining deceptive similarity with the cited marks and must be seen as a whole. Such fragmented comparison is contrary to the test laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, which mandates a holistic assessment of similarity based on visual, phonetic and conceptual factors. This principle was reinforced in Muneer Ahmad v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7345, where this Court held that a composite device mark cannot be broken down for comparison and must be considered as a whole. Respondent has dissected the applied mark SIGNATUREGLOBAL into SIGNATURE and GLOBAL, which is erroneous method of comparison and cannot be sustained. Taken as a whole, the applied mark is structurally and visually different from the cited marks in terms of shape, colour, style of writing, colour combination and scheme.

5. It is argued that Appellant is a proprietor of multiple registrations incorporating SIGNATUREGLOBAL even in Classes 36 and 37, which are valid and subsisting and these prior registrations are evidence of distinctiveness of the mark. In response to the ER, Appellant had given a list of 44 marks incorporating SIGNATUREGLOBAL which have been registered by the same Registry in favour of the Appellant, but Respondent has not even looked at this crucial aspect.

6. It is urged that SIGNATUREGLOBAL is a unique mark and distinctive for the services offered by the Appellant and capable of distinguishing the services of others, leaving no scope of confusion. The mark has no indirect or direct reference to kind, quality or nature of services offered and assuming for the sake of argument that it is suggestive, even then suggestive marks are registrable. Respondent has overlooked that there is no similarity in the services offered under the applied mark and thos