What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

Trademark Registration Attorney Nihar Ranjan Nayak, Chandigarh (2026)

Trademark Objections.

⚖️ Trademark Attorney

*Disclaimer: All the posts are for knowledge purposes only, not for advertisements. Trademark Attorney | Pharma Legal | Medico Legal

11/08/2026

⚖️ DELHI HIGH COURT ON TRADEMARK REGISTRATION

🏛️ K**A CASA — A Composite Mark Cannot Be Dissected to Refuse Registration

📌 Case: Modi Woodspace Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks
📌 Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 56/2025
📌 Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
📌 Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
📌 Judgment Delivered: 22 April 2026
📌 Trademark Application: No. 6087367
📌 Mark: K**A CASA
📌 Classes: 20 & 35

🔹 1. BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE

Modi Woodspace Private Limited filed an application for registration of the word mark “K**A CASA” in Classes 20 and 35 on a “proposed to be used” basis on 29.08.2023.

The Trade Marks Registry issued an Examination Report dated 19.10.2023 raising an objection under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The applicant submitted its reply. After several hearing notices and adjournments, the matter was finally heard on 15.04.2025.

However, by order dated 21.05.2025, the Registrar refused the application.

The applicant thereafter approached the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

⚠️ 2. WHY DID THE REGISTRAR REFUSE “K**A CASA”?

The Registrar relied upon earlier marks containing the words “K**A” and “CASA”, including marks bearing application/registration references 3954013 (K**A), 4969425 and 4988481 (CASA).

According to the Registrar:

🔸 The applied mark contained the terms “K**A” and “CASA”.

🔸 Similar marks were already registered in Class 20.

🔸 The combined mark “K**A CASA” was considered likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers and traders.

🔸 The applied mark was considered phonetically, visually and structurally similar to the cited marks.

🔸 The cited marks had prior use dating back to 2018, 2013 and 2007, whereas the applicant had filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

Consequently, the application was refused under Section 11(1).

🧑‍⚖️ 3. APPELLANT'S CORE ARGUMENT

The appellant challenged the fundamental manner in which the Registrar compared the marks.

The principal submission was:

«“K**A CASA” must be examined as one composite mark and cannot be broken into “K**A” and “CASA”.»

The appellant further pointed out that:

🔹 K**A CASA was a word mark.

🔹 The cited K**A and CASA marks were device/label marks.

🔹 The cited marks contained distinctive device elements.

🔹 There was no legal basis for comparing one composite word mark with two separate device marks and refusing registration merely because the words appeared separately in the cited marks.

The appellant also relied upon the Anti-Dissection Rule and several judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court concerning the principle that a trademark must ordinarily be considered as a whole.

🏛️ 4. WHAT DID THE REGISTRAR'S OFFICE ARGUE?

The respondent defended the refusal.

It was argued that:

🔸 The cited marks and the applied mark were in the same class.

🔸 Visual inspection allegedly demonstrated similarity.

🔸 Such similarity could create confusion or deception among consumers and traders.

🔸 Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act requires refusal where an applied mark is identical or similar to an earlier mark and the relevant goods/services are identical or similar.

The respondent relied upon judicial precedents including Rajkumar Sharma v. Sandeep Kumar & Anr. and Mohammad Talha v. M/s Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

⚖️ 5. THE DELHI HIGH COURT'S ANALYSIS

The Court found a fundamental problem in the approach adopted by the Registrar.

🔍 THE MARK HAD TO BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE

The Court held that the Registrar was required to consider “K**A CASA” as a composite word mark, rather than breaking it into two independent components—“K**A” and “CASA”.

The Court observed that permitting such dissection could produce anomalous and incongruous results.

The Anti-Dissection Rule, the Court held, requires a trademark to be considered as a composite mark and prevents comparison of a single composite mark with separate earlier marks merely because individual elements may appear in those earlier marks.

👁️ 6. WORD MARK VS DEVICE MARK — A CRUCIAL DISTINCTION

The Court identified another important aspect.

Appellant's mark

➡️ K**A CASA — Word Mark

Cited marks

➡️ K**A — Device Mark
➡️ CASA — Device Mark(s)

The Court noted that the cited device marks could not simply be dissected to extract the words “K**A” and “CASA”, while completely ignoring their respective device elements.

The Court therefore found it difficult to understand how the Registrar had compared the composite word mark K**A CASA with separate device marks containing “K**A” and “CASA”.

🎯 7. SAME CLASS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN TRADEMARK SIMILARITY

An important practical takeaway is that merely because trademarks fall within the same class, registration cannot automatically be refused.

The Court specifically observed that, despite the common classification, it found no similarity or deceptive similarity between the two sets of marks on the facts before it.

Thus, classification is an important factor, but it does not by itself conclude the question of deceptive similarity.

📚 8. “CASA” SEARCH REPORT — ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACTOR

The appellant also placed before the High Court a 19-page Trademark Registry search report showing numerous trademarks containing the word “CASA” in the same or similar classes.

The Court noted that several such marks had proceeded to registration.

However, the appellant fairly admitted that this search report had not been placed before the Registrar during the original proceedings.

The High Court therefore considered it appropriate that the Registrar should examine the search report while reconsidering the application.

🧑‍⚖️ 9. WHAT WAS THE FINAL DECISION?

The Delhi High Court did not itself direct registration of “K**A CASA.”

Instead, the Court adopted the appropriate procedural course.

✅ The Court:

✔️ Quashed and set aside the Registrar's order dated 21.05.2025.

✔️ Revived Trademark Application No. 6087367.

✔️ Remitted the matter back to the Registrar of Trade Marks.

✔️ Directed the Registrar to undertake fresh de novo consideration of the application.

✔️ Directed the Registrar to consider the search report placed before the High Court.

✔️ Directed that the de novo consideration be completed within four months.

✔️ Allowed and disposed of the appeal without any order as to costs.

⚠️ 10. IMPORTANT: THE COURT DID NOT FINALLY GRANT REGISTRATION

This is a crucial point.

The judgment does not amount to an order directing registration of “K**A CASA.”

The Court expressly clarified that its observations should not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the trademark application.

The matter has been sent back to the Registrar for a fresh de novo decision.

Therefore:

Application revived ≠ Registration granted.

The final decision on registrability remains with the Registrar.

💡 11. KEY LEGAL PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM THE JUDGMENT

🛡️ Principle 1 — Anti-Dissection Rule

A composite trademark should ordinarily be assessed as a whole, rather than being artificially divided into separate components.

🛡️ Principle 2 — Overall Commercial Impression Matters

The question of similarity cannot be decided merely by identifying individual words appearing in different marks.

🛡️ Principle 3 — Device Elements Cannot Simply Be Ignored

Where earlier marks are device/label marks, their distinctive visual elements form part of the marks and cannot simply be disregarded.

🛡️ Principle 4 — Same Class Is Not Conclusive

The fact that marks fall in the same trademark class does not, by itself, establish deceptive similarity.

🛡️ Principle 5 — Search Report Can Be Relevant

Evidence concerning existing registrations and the Registry's treatment of similar marks may be relevant to the fresh consideration of an application.

🛡️ Principle 6 — Remand Is Not Registration

When a refusal order is quashed and an application is revived, it does not necessarily mean that the trademark has been ordered to be registered.

📌 12. PRACTICAL TAKEAWAY FOR TRADEMARK APPLICANTS & ATTORNEYS

This judgment highlights the importance of presenting a trademark dispute before the Registry in its correct legal and factual perspective.

When responding to a Section 11 objection, practitioners should carefully examine:

🔹 The mark as a whole
🔹 Whether cited marks are word marks or device marks
🔹 The overall commercial impression
🔹 Visual, phonetic and structural similarities
🔹 Nature of the goods/services
🔹 Actual marketplace context, where relevant
🔹 Prior registrations and the Registry record
🔹 The applicability of the Anti-Dissection Rule
🔹 Relevant judicial precedents
🔹 Evidence of prior use and adoption
The case also demonstrates the importance of placing all relevant material before the Registrar itself, rather than waiting until the appellate stage.

⚖️ CONCLUSION
The Modi Woodspace judgment reinforces an important principle of trademark examination:
A trademark should not be artificially dissected merely to manufacture similarity.
A composite mark must be examined in its entirety, and where the cited marks themselves contain distinctive device elements, those elements cannot simply be ignored.

⚠️ Disclaimer: This post is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and is based on the author's understanding of the judgment. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, it may contain inadvertent errors or omissions. Readers are advised to refer to the official judgment and seek independent legal advice before relying on any information contained herein. The views expressed are personal and should not be construed as legal advice.

✍️ Nihar Ranjan Nayak
Trademark Attorney
🌐 www.niharranjannayak.in

09/08/2026

⚖️ TRADEMARK LAW UPDATE | AROKYA vs. PATANJALI AAROGYA

🏛️ Madras High Court – Division Bench

Hatsun Agro Product Ltd. v. M/s. Patanjali Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
OSA No.263 of 2020
Decision dated: 21 April 2026

🏷️ THE TRADEMARK DISPUTE

The dispute concerned the trademarks “AROKYA” and “PATANJALI AAROGYA”.

The appellant, Hatsun Agro Product Ltd., claimed proprietary rights and substantial goodwill in the trademark “AROKYA”, which it had been using since 1994 for milk and dairy products.

Hatsun alleged that the use of “PATANJALI AAROGYA” by the respondents on biscuits amounted to:

🔹 Trademark infringement
🔹 Passing off
🔹 Misappropriation of goodwill and reputation
🔹 Creation of confusion amongst consumers

The respondents, however, contended that “AAROGYA” is a Sanskrit word meaning overall well-being and that the competing products and trademarks were materially different.

The judgment records the appellant's extensive trademark registrations for AROKYA across multiple classes.

⚔️ CORE CONTENTIONS OF HATSUN

The appellant argued that:

📌 “AROKYA” had acquired substantial distinctiveness, goodwill and reputation through continuous use.

📌 “AAROGYA” was phonetically similar to “AROKYA”.

📌 The respondents were using “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits, which were made using milk, thereby creating a connection with Hatsun's dairy products.

📌 The use was allegedly dishonest and amounted to infringement and passing off.

📌 The appellant had already opposed the respondents' trademark applications before the Trade Marks Registry.

The appellant therefore sought permanent injunctions against use of “AAROGYA”, delivery-up and destruction of infringing material, rendition of accounts and payment of profits and costs.

🛡️ DEFENCE OF PATANJALI

The respondents substantially relied upon the following grounds:

🔹 Different goods: Hatsun's trademark was associated principally with milk and dairy products, whereas Patanjali used “PATANJALI AAROGYA” for biscuits.

🔹 Different classes: Hatsun's relevant registration was in Class 29, whereas Patanjali's registration concerned biscuits in Class 30.

🔹 Composite mark: The respondents were using the expression “PATANJALI AAROGYA”, and the prominent house mark “PATANJALI” distinguished the mark.

🔹 Registered proprietor: The respondents relied upon their registration and invoked Sections 28(3) and 134 of the Trade Marks Act.

🔹 No likelihood of confusion: According to the respondents, the respective products, marks and market circumstances were sufficiently different.

The respondents also contended that the suit was not maintainable against a registered proprietor and sought summary dismissal.

⚖️ PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The litigation underwent several stages.

📍 Initial injunction:
The Madras High Court initially granted an interim injunction on 28 February 2019 restraining the respondents from using the disputed mark.

📍 Interim injunction vacated:
The Single Judge subsequently vacated the injunction, observing that the parties' goods and trademark classes were different and that the issues required consideration in the suit.

📍 Summary judgment application:
The respondents had sought summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC.

📍 Earlier appellate intervention:
The Division Bench had earlier remanded the summary judgment application for fresh consideration because the Single Judge had not adequately dealt with the requirements of Order XIII-A.

📍 Fresh summary judgment:
Upon reconsideration, the Single Judge allowed the respondents' application and dismissed the suit with costs, holding that the plaintiff had no real prospect of success.

Hatsun thereafter challenged that decision before the Division Bench in OSA No.263 of 2020.

🔍 WHAT WERE THE MAIN LEGAL ISSUES?

The Division Bench essentially considered:

1️⃣ Whether the summary dismissal of the trademark infringement and passing-off suit was legally justified?

2️⃣ Whether the phonetic similarity between “AROKYA” and “AAROGYA” was sufficient to establish infringement?

3️⃣ Whether the difference in goods and trademark classes was material?

4️⃣ Whether the respondents' registration and Section 28(3) of the Trade Marks Act protected their use?

5️⃣ Whether the matter required a full-fledged trial with oral and documentary evidence?

📚 IMPORTANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

The Court considered Sections 12, 28(3) and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, together with Order XIII-A CPC relating to summary judgment in commercial disputes.

The Single Judge had relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Vishnudas Trading v. Vazir Sultan To***co Ltd., (1997) 4 SCC 401, particularly regarding the scope of trademark protection and the inability of a proprietor to claim an unrestricted monopoly over goods in which it does not trade.

The Court also considered the statutory possibility of coexistence of similar marks under Section 12 and the protection contemplated under Section 28(3) where there are multiple registered proprietors of identical or nearly similar marks.

🧑‍⚖️ FINDINGS OF THE DIVISION BENCH

The Division Bench noted that:

✅ Hatsun was the registered proprietor of AROKYA in relation to milk and milk products.

✅ Patanjali's mark was PATANJALI AAROGYA, used in relation to biscuits.

✅ The respective goods were treated as distinct, falling principally under Classes 29 and 30 respectively.

✅ The respondents had registration for PATANJALI AAROGYA.

✅ Hatsun had already opposed the respondents' trademark application before the Trade Marks Registry, and those proceedings were pending.

✅ The fact that milk may be an ingredient in biscuits did not, by itself, make the goods identical or sufficiently similar for the purpose of the infringement claim.

The Court specifically observed that consumers generally look at the similarity of the marks and the goods in the market; however, in the present factual circumstances, the products were found to be distinct and the respondent's mark included the prefix “PATANJALI”.

🏛️ FINAL OUTCOME

The appeal was DISMISSED.

The Division Bench comprising:

👨‍⚖️ Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan

👩‍⚖️ Hon'ble Mrs. Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi

held on 21 April 2026 that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the dismissal of Hatsun's suit was allowed to stand.

There was no order as to costs in the appeal.

💡 KEY TAKEAWAY FOR TRADEMARK OWNERS

This judgment demonstrates an important practical point:

«Trademark similarity cannot necessarily be determined merely by comparing the words phonetically or visually in isolation.»

The Court's assessment also considered:

🔹 Nature of goods
🔹 Classification
🔹 Actual market use
🔹 Composite nature of the competing marks
🔹 Likelihood of confusion
🔹 Existing registrations
🔹 Statutory provisions concerning coexistence
🔹 Scope of summary judgment

Therefore, registration of a mark does not automatically create an unlimited monopoly over the word across every conceivable product category.

At the same time, every trademark dispute remains highly dependent upon its specific facts, goods/services, market circumstances, reputation and statutory protection available to the respective marks.

⚠️ Disclaimer: This post is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and is based on the author's understanding of the judgment. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, it may contain inadvertent errors or omissions. Readers are advised to refer to the official judgment and seek independent legal advice before relying on any information contained herein. The views expressed are personal and should not be construed as legal advice.

✍️ Advocate Nihar Ranjan Nayak
Trademark Attorney

07/08/2026

⚖️ DELHI HIGH COURT ON TRADEMARK DISTINCTIVENESS

🏷️ BIG INDIA — A Trademark Cannot Be Examined by Splitting Its Words in Isolation

📌 Case: Purpos Planet v. Registrar of Trade Marks
📌 Court: High Court of Delhi, New Delhi
📌 Case No.: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 30/2025
📌 Date of Judgment: 22 May 2026
📌 Coram: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
📌 Relevant Provision: Section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act, 1999
📌 Trade Mark: “BIG INDIA” — Word Mark
📌 Class: 05
📌 Application No.: 5214186

🔎 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Appellant, Purpos Planet, had adopted and applied for registration of the word mark “BIG INDIA” on a proposed to be used basis on 18 November 2021 in Class 05.

The application covered pharmaceutical, medical and veterinary preparations, sanitary preparations, dietary supplements, disinfectants, fungicides, herbicides and other goods falling within Class 05.

The Trade Marks Registry issued an Examination Report raising an objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, essentially alleging that the mark was geographical/non-distinctive and incapable of distinguishing the goods of one person from those of another.

The Applicant submitted a detailed response and was subsequently given a hearing. However, the objection was not waived.

On 27 May 2025, the Registrar/Senior Examiner refused registration of the word mark “BIG INDIA”, holding that the mark was common and non-distinctive and that granting exclusive rights over such words could unfairly restrict others.

⚔️ WHAT WAS THE CORE DISPUTE?

The central question before the Delhi High Court was not whether “BIG INDIA” should ultimately be registered, but whether the Trade Marks Registry had properly examined the Applicant's contentions before refusing registration.

The Applicant contended that:

🔹 The mark “BIG INDIA” must be examined as a whole, rather than by dissecting “BIG” and “INDIA” individually.

🔹 Although the individual words may be commonly used, their combination could constitute a distinctive and unique trademark.

🔹 “BIG INDIA” had no descriptive or conceptual connection with the pharmaceutical and medical goods covered under Class 05.

🔹 The Applicant had specifically stated that it did not claim exclusive rights over “BIG” or “INDIA” individually, and was seeking protection for the composite mark as a whole.

🔹 Appropriate protection/disclaimer could be considered instead of refusing the application outright.

🔹 The Applicant had already obtained registrations for “BIG INDIA” in other classes, including Classes 31 and 43.

🏛️ WHAT DID THE REGISTRAR ARGUE?

The Respondent defended the refusal on the basis that:

➡️ “BIG INDIA” was generic, commonly used and non-distinctive.

➡️ Section 9(1)(a) prohibits registration of a mark which is devoid of distinctive character.

➡️ Granting exclusive rights over the words could unfairly restrict other persons from using them.

➡️ The earlier registration of a stylized/device mark containing “BIG INDIA” could not automatically justify registration of the word mark because each trademark application has to be examined on its own merits.

The Registry particularly relied upon the distinction between the stylized device mark and the plain word mark.

⚖️ WHAT DID THE DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVE?

The Court examined Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prevents registration of trademarks that are devoid of distinctive character—i.e., marks that are not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another.

The Court accepted that the individual words “BIG” and “INDIA”, when considered separately, are common and non-distinctive.

However, that was not the end of the examination.

The Court found that the Applicant had raised several important contentions which the Trade Marks Registry had failed to consider.

🧩 IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE — EXAMINE THE MARK AS A WHOLE

One of the important submissions before the Court was that the trademark “BIG INDIA” should be examined as a composite whole.

The Applicant relied upon the established anti-dissection principle and argued that the mark should not be examined merely by separately analysing “BIG” and “INDIA”.

The Court noted that the Applicant had specifically contended that the combination “BIG INDIA” was uncommon, unique and distinctive, particularly in relation to the goods covered by Class 05.

The judgment also records reliance upon Jain Shikanji Private Limited v. Satish Kumar Jain, where the Court had held that a mark comprising two generic/common words may, in an appropriate case, nevertheless be distinctive and capable of distinguishing goods.

💊 DISTINCTIVENESS MUST BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO THE GOODS

Another significant point was that the trademark was proposed for Class 05 goods such as pharmaceuticals, dietary supplements, disinfectants, fungicides, herbicides and other medical preparations.

The Applicant argued that “BIG INDIA” had no direct connection or descriptive meaning in relation to these goods and was therefore arbitrary when considered in the context of the applied goods.

The Court noted that this crucial aspect had not been properly considered by the Trade Marks Registry.

📌 Practical takeaway:

A mark should not necessarily be labelled “non-distinctive” merely because its constituent words are common. The real question is whether the mark, as a whole, is capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services.

🇮🇳 CAN A TRADEMARK CONTAIN THE WORD “INDIA”?

The Applicant also relied upon judicial precedent concerning geographical names.

Reference was made to Radico Khaitan Limited v. Union of India & Another, where the Delhi High Court observed that merely including a geographical name in a trademark does not automatically disentitle the mark from registration or protection.

The judgment also refers to the principle that a geographical name may be capable of functioning as a trademark when it is used in an arbitrary or fanciful manner rather than merely indicating geographical origin.

Therefore, the mere presence of the word “INDIA” cannot, by itself, conclusively determine the issue of registrability.

📋 EARLIER REGISTRATIONS — WHAT WAS THEIR SIGNIFICANCE?

The Applicant pointed out that “BIG INDIA” had previously been registered in other classes, including Classes 31 and 43, subject to appropriate disclaimer conditions.

The Applicant also relied upon several registrations containing the word “INDIA” and referred to trademarks incorporating “INDIA” which had received protection.

However, the Court did not hold that earlier registrations automatically entitled the Applicant to registration in Class 05.

Instead, the important issue was that these submissions were relevant contentions which the Registry was required to consider and address before arriving at its decision.

🗣️ A SPEAKING & REASONED ORDER IS ESSENTIAL

This is perhaps the most important procedural aspect of the judgment.

The Delhi High Court found that the impugned order was unreasoned and non-speaking because several crucial submissions made by the Applicant were not considered.

The Court emphasized that an authority deciding the rights and contentions of parties must provide reasons explaining:

✅ What factors were considered;

✅ Why the Applicant's submissions were rejected; and

✅ What led the authority to reach its adverse conclusion.

The Court observed that a reasoned order is also connected with the principles of natural justice, because an applicant has a right to know why its case has been rejected.

🚨 WHY DID THE HIGH COURT INTERVENE?

The Court did not substitute its own view on whether “BIG INDIA” was ultimately registrable.

Instead, it found that the Registry had failed to undertake the necessary examination of the important issues raised by the Applicant.

According to the Court, such a methodology:

🔸 undermines the purpose of inviting a response to the Examination Report;

🔸 undermines the opportunity of hearing granted to the Applicant;

🔸 violates principles of natural justice; and

🔸 results in an inadequate examination of the trademark application.

🏆 FINAL OUTCOME

The Delhi High Court partially allowed the appeal.

The Court:

⚖️ Quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 27 May 2025.

🔄 Directed reconsideration of Trademark Application No. 5214186 for the word mark “BIG INDIA” in Class 05.

👂 Directed the Trade Marks Registry to consider all the points raised by the Applicant and provide an opportunity of hearing.

⏳ Directed that the decision be taken within four months from the date of receipt of the copy of the High Court's order.

Importantly, the Court expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the trademark application.

💡 KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR TRADEMARK APPLICANTS

1️⃣ Common words can sometimes form a distinctive composite mark

Two individually common words may, depending upon their combination and context, constitute a distinctive trademark.

2️⃣ The mark should be assessed in its proper context

Distinctiveness must be considered with reference to the goods/services for which registration is sought.

3️⃣ Geographical words are not automatically prohibited

The inclusion of a geographical name such as “INDIA” does not by itself make a trademark unregistrable.

4️⃣ Anti-dissection principle remains important

A composite trademark should not mechanically be dissected into individual components while determining its overall distinctiveness.

5️⃣ Registry orders must contain reasons

A rejection cannot merely state the conclusion. Relevant submissions made by the applicant must be considered and addressed.

6️⃣ Earlier registrations are relevant, but not conclusive

Prior registrations may form part of an applicant's submissions, but every application must ultimately be examined on its own facts and applicable legal standards.

7️⃣ Disclaimer can be an important consideration

Where an applicant does not seek exclusive rights over individual descriptive/common elements, the question of an appropriate disclaimer may require consideration rather than automatic rejection.

📌 IMPORTANT LEGAL CLARIFICATION

This judgment does NOT mean that “BIG INDIA” has been finally registered as a trademark.

The High Court only set aside the refusal order and remanded the application to the Trade Marks Registry for fresh consideration.

The Court expressly left the merits of registrability open.

⚖️ ⚠️ Disclaimer: This post is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and is based on the author's understanding of the judgment. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, it may contain inadvertent errors or omissions. Readers are advised to refer to the official judgment and seek independent legal advice before relying on any information contained herein. The views expressed are personal and should not be construed as legal advice.

✍️📑 Advocate Nihar Ranjan Nayak [ Trademark Attorney ]

06/08/2026

PRIOR TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS:

🧑‍⚖️⚖️ DELHI HIGH COURT REAFFIRMS THE IMPORTANCE OF PRIOR TRADE MARK APPLICATIONS IN REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS

📌 Case Title

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
LPA 316/2026
Delhi High Court
Judgment Delivered: 28 July 2026

🏛️ Background of the Dispute

The dispute concerned the trade mark "20-20" in Class 30 (biscuits, confectionery and allied food products).

Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. challenged the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, which had dismissed its opposition and allowed registration of the identical mark "20-20" in favour of the second respondent. The Single Judge also upheld the Registrar's decision, prompting Parle to file a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

⚖️ Core Legal Issues

🔹 Whether actual prior commercial use of a trade mark overrides an earlier application filed on a "proposed to be used" basis.

🔹 Whether the Registrar and the Single Judge correctly interpreted Sections 11, 18, 34 and 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

🔹 Whether a party that has not commercially used a mark for several years can still claim registration based on an earlier filing date.

📝 Arguments of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.

Parle contended that:

✅ It had honestly adopted and continuously used the mark "20-20" since 2007–08.

✅ It had built substantial goodwill and reputation through extensive commercial use.

✅ The doctrine of "First in the Market" and Section 34 protect prior users over mere prior applicants.

✅ The Registrar wrongly ignored actual commercial use and focused only on the earlier filing date.

✅ Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court decision in Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd., emphasising that rights arising from prior use prevail over mere registration.

🛡️ Arguments of Respondent No. 2

The respondent argued that:

✔️ It filed the application for "20-20" earlier (27.09.2007) than Parle.

✔️ The application remained pending for several years due to delays at the Trade Marks Registry.

✔️ It continuously pursued its application through RTI proceedings, writ proceedings and IPAB proceedings.

✔️ Since its application preceded Parle's application, it possessed superior statutory rights in the registration proceedings.

✔️ Parle could not establish use prior to the respondent's filing date.

⚖️ Legal Principles Examined

The Division Bench analysed:

📚 Section 11 – Relative grounds for refusal.

📚 Section 18 – Proprietorship and applications on a "proposed to be used" basis.

📚 Section 34 – Rights of prior users.

📚 Section 47 – Removal for non-use.

The Court also examined landmark precedents including:

• Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd.

• Mohan Goldwater Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. Khoday Distilleries Pvt. Ltd.

• Nandhini Deluxe

• Other leading trademark authorities.

🏛️ Outcome

The Delhi High Court examined the interplay between priority of application and priority of commercial use, while considering the scope of registration proceedings under the Trade Marks Act.

The judgment provides significant guidance on:

✅ The distinction between registration disputes and passing-off actions.

✅ The legal effect of applications filed on a "proposed to be used" basis.

✅ The extent to which prior use can be invoked in opposition and registration proceedings.

✅ Harmonious interpretation of Sections 11, 18 and 34 of the Trade Marks Act.

📚 Key Takeaways for Trade Mark Practitioners

✅ Filing a trade mark application at the earliest opportunity remains critically important.

✅ Prior commercial use continues to be a powerful right but must be established with convincing documentary evidence.

✅ Opposition proceedings require careful consideration of both statutory registration rights and common law principles.

✅ Businesses should maintain continuous evidence of adoption, promotion and commercial use to protect their brands effectively.

⚠️ Disclaimer: This post is intended solely for educational and informational purposes and is based on the author's understanding of the judgment. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, it may contain inadvertent errors or omissions. Readers are advised to refer to the official judgment and seek independent legal advice before relying on any information contained herein. The views expressed are personal and should not be construed as legal advice.

✍️ Nihar Ranjan Nayak
Trademark Attorney

Address

Chandigarh

Opening Hours

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm

Telephone

+919438251718

Website

https://niharranjannayak.in/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Trademark Registration Attorney Nihar Ranjan Nayak posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to Trademark Registration Attorney Nihar Ranjan Nayak:

Trademark Registration Attorney Nihar Ranjan Nayak