Can Common Words Used Arbitrarily Be Protected as Trademarks?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 21

A common or generic term according to Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act means ‘commonly used word in local language, which describes qualities of goods or services and words customary in trade practices’. ... Therefore, the Subject Mark is not generic or common to the trade and is entitled to be protected under the Trade MarksAct. ... In the present case, ‘DUNIYADARI’ is a suggestive Hindi word, which is applied arbitrarily to a distinct service. ... In view of the above submissions, it....

2024 Supreme(US)(ca3) 114

Plaintiffs contend that weapons used for any lawful purpose including self-defense are protected, while Delaware argues that only weapons that are commonly used for self-defense are protected. Delaware’s argument proves stronger. ... no longer brings along his or her own weapon to militia duty, does not prevent us from recognizing the significance of the words used in the 18th century to create the Second Amendment. ... ... 11 presumptively ....

The plain and clear language in DPM’s Note in my view simply means that the 12 words can be used unconditionally while the 4 words cannot be used but the 4 words can be used subject to the condition stated immediately below the 4 words. ... [81]Paragraph 2 of the DPM’s Note stated that 4 words “Allah”, “Kaabah”, “Baitullah” and “Solat” were not permitted to be used and appearing immediately below the 4 words were ....

2007 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7

Passing - off gives no monopoly rights to words or marks of any sort, and this is all the more important when the term is in common use outside its capacity as the plaintiff's trade mark. ... Blue Super Flame MANU / DE / 0606/1985 : AIR 1986 Del. 245, in which two words super and flame which are dictionary words were joined together were declared as coined words and protection was granted. ... II. Reddaway v. ... There is all possibility or likelihood, and in fact it is usually the case, that ....

2023 Supreme(US)(ca7) 507

In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....

2023 Supreme(US)(ca7) 506

In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....

2023 Supreme(US)(ca7) 503

In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....

2023 Supreme(US)(ca7) 502

In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....

2023 Supreme(US)(ca7) 504

In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....

2023 Supreme(US)(ca7) 505

In other words, the relevant question is what are the modern analogues to the weapons people used for individual self-defense in 1791, and perhaps as late as 1868. ... Under Bruen’s history and tradition test, the government parties bear the burden to show that the banned arms are not in common use—or in other words, are not dangerous and unusual—and to identify historical analogues. ... are not “in common use.” ... Volokh suggested that “Arms” with the same level of practical danger- ousness as those i....

2020 0 Supreme(Del) 1083

In Reddaway v. Banham,1896 13 RPC 218 "Camel Hair" was concerned with a trademark in relation to belts made out of Camel hairs. There is undoubtedly some body of authority supporting protection for word marks, or combination of common words. Globe Super Parts v. Blue Super Flame, (1986) AIR Delhi 245 , was a case where the two common words "Super" and "Flame" joined together were declared as coined words and protection was granted. Normally, proprietary or exclusive use of a common word should not be given jural imprimatur.

2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 1553

Similarly, in CDJ 2011 DHC 1174 (Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd Vs. Parul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.), a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has held that the registration would give protection for the trade mark as a whole and not to a particular word of common origin. From the dictum laid down in the above cited decisions, it is clear that the common words are not entitled to be protected under Trade Marks Act.

2007 0 Supreme(Del) 2812

These words are invented in relation to a particular good. Such words are inherently distinctive and Therefore have to be protected in any case. These words are designed or contrived through imagination for the first time wherein ability as well as flight or effort of imagination is displayed.

1993 0 Supreme(Bom) 462

In other words, whether they are arbitrary or confer power upon authorities which can be used arbitrarily or unreasonable. In the light thereof we shall first consider each of the regulations separately to decide whether they are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.

1993 0 Supreme(Bom) 463

In other words, whether they are arbitrary or confer power upon authorities which can be used arbitrarily or unreasonable. In the light thereof we shall first consider each of the regulations separately to decide whether they are ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution.