Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Muneer Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
Registrar of Trade Marks – Respondent
ORDER
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 20/2023
1. The order dated 12 May 2023, passed by the Senior Examiner of Trademarks and impugned in the present appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, rejects Application No. 4136359, filed by the appellant seeking registration of the device mark 
in Class 16 for "Painting Brushes, Artistic Brushes, Roller Brushes".
2. The paragraphs from the impugned order which set out the grounds for rejecting the appellant's application, read as under:
"Following objections were raised:
Section 9 (1) (a): The mark applied for registration is objectionable under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, as it is devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person.
Section 9(1) (b) - The mark applied for registration is objectionable under S 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, as it consists of which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, values, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or service.
The reply to examination report and materials a
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.
The court established that a composite trade mark must be assessed as a whole for registration, not in parts, and that refusal based on descriptiveness must consider the entirety of the mark.
Composite device marks should be considered as a whole for registration, and the statutory provision of Section 9(1)(b) should be interpreted without dissecting the mark into its individual parts.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to the statutory provisions of the Trademarks Act in determining the eligibility for trademark registration, including the ....
For trademarks filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, evidence of secondary meaning is not required. Trademarks must be analyzed as a whole rather than being dissected into common constituent words, a....
A descriptive trademark can be registered if it is proven to have acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, alongside consideration of existing registrations and usage.
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.
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
