O R D E R

% 22.04.2026

1. This appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 91 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) and Rule 156 of The Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (‘2017 Rules’) laying a challenge to impugned order dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Respondent, whereby Respondent has refused to register the applied trademark ‘AROMA SPHERE’ in Class 35 with respect to ‘retail, wholesale and marketing of scented oils, reed diffusers, fragrance refills for reed diffusers, fragrances for automobiles, scented room sprays and electric fragrance diffusers’.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Vikram Singh Dalal, learned SPC accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent.

4. To the extent necessary, the facts are that Appellant conceived and adopted the trademark AROMA SPHERE in 2022 and registered the domain name <aromasphere.co> on 15.02.2023 as also created social media accounts and launched her website www.aromasphere.co on 31.03.2023. On 28.07.2023, Appellant filed application bearing No. 6042820 for registration of mark AROMA SPHERE in Class 35 with user claim since 31.03.2023. Examination Report was issued by the Respondent on 02.11.2023 raising objections under Section 9(1)(a) and Section 11(1) of 1999 Act, to which Appellant filed a reply on 29.11.2023 requesting for a waiver of the objections. However, by impugned order dated 21.01.2026, Respondent refused to register the trademark under Section 11 of 1999 Act, waiving the objection under Section 9(1)(a) of 1999 Act.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the trademark AROMA SPHERE was honestly conceived and adopted by the Appellant in 2022 and on 31.03.2023, she launched her website with a wide range of products, including scented oils, diffusers etc. with pan-India shipping with several promotional posts on all her social media accounts. Appellant spent significant resources and unparalleled efforts to promote her goods under the trademark AROMA SPHERE and due to continuous and extensive use for retail and wholesale business, through online and offline sales, the mark is associated with the Appellant alone and she can go boast of prestigious brands such as Fortis Hospital, PVR INOX, Aditya Birla Group as being her clients.

6. It is submitted that the application for registration has been erroneously refused under Section 11 of 1999 Act inasmuch as the Registrar has not looked into a crucial fact that the goods/services covered under the cited mark AROMASPHERE are completely dissimilar to the goods/services under the applied mark. Cited mark pertains to ‘business management services, namely providing business marketing information in relation to the use of flavors’, whereas the applied mark is limited to ‘retail, wholesale and marketing of scented oils, reed diffusers, fragrance refills for reed diffusers, fragrances for automobiles, scented room sprays and electric fragrance diffusers’. Rule 33 of 2017 Rules unambiguously provides that search shall be carried out amongst the earlier trademarks registered or applied for registration in respect of same goods or services or similar goods or services. Respondent has not even discussed the issue of similarity or otherwise of the rival goods and purely on the similarity of the rival marks has come to a conclusion that there is likelihood of confusion, which is against the very scheme of Section 11(1) of 1999 Act and Rule 33 of 2017 Rules. Since goods/services are completely dissimilar, there is absolutely no cause of confusion in this case.

7. It is further argued that Respondent has failed to appreciate that registration of the cited mark was obtained on ‘proposed to be used’ basis with no backing by documents on actual use, whereas the Appellant has claimed use since 31.03.2023 and filed an affidavit of use before the Registrar along with documentary evidence, which has been overlooked and a wrong finding has been rendered in the impugned order that the applied mark is filed on ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Learned counsel sub