Delhi HC Ruled “ONE FOR ALL” Trademark Registrable for Books; Common Words Can Be Distinctive When Unconnected with the Goods

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 10.09.2026

Delhi HC Ruled “ONE FOR ALL” Trademark Registrable for Books; Common Words Can Be Distinctive When Unconnected with the Goods

The Delhi High Court has ruled in favour of Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited, holding that its mark “ONE FOR ALL” is capable of registration for educational books and allied publications under Class 16 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla set aside the orders of both the Registrar of Trade Marks and the Single Judge which had refused registration on the ground that “ONE FOR ALL” was a common, laudatory and non-distinctive expression.

Trademark Registry Had Refused “ONE FOR ALL”

• Oswaal Books, engaged in the publication and sale of educational books and academic material, claimed to have adopted the mark “ONE FOR ALL” from 20 August 2020 for its educational publications.
• It filed Trade Mark Application No. 4711190 on 20 October 2020 for registration in Class 16. The Registry raised an objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, requiring Oswaal to establish that the mark was capable of distinguishing its goods from those of other traders.
• The application was ultimately refused on 14 December 2023 on the ground that “ONE FOR ALL” was a common and non-distinctive expression and that Oswaal had failed to establish acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning.

Single Judge Also Found the Mark Descriptive

• Oswaal challenged the Registry’s decision before the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act.
• The Single Judge, however, upheld the refusal, reasoning that “ONE FOR ALL” was a common laudatory phrase suggesting that Oswaal’s books constituted a universal or “one-stop” solution for students across different examinations and boards.
• The Single Judge further found that the evidence produced by Oswaal largely related to its house mark “OSWAAL BOOKS”, rather than establishing “ONE FOR ALL” as an independent source identifier.
• Oswaal then preferred the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.

Distinctiveness Must Be Examined in Context of the Goods

• The Division Bench clarified an important principle of trademark law: a mark cannot be declared non-distinctive merely because it consists of ordinary or commonly used words.
• Distinctiveness has to be assessed in relation to the particular goods or services for which registration is sought.
• The Court relied on its earlier decision in Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. and reiterated that even a common dictionary word can acquire distinctive character when used for goods or services with which the expression has no immediate connection.
• The test, therefore, is not simply whether the words are commonly used in the English language, but whether consumers would immediately associate those words with the nature, quality, characteristics or purpose of the relevant goods.

Slogans and Taglines Can Function as Trademarks

• The judgment also contains an important observation regarding the modern commercial significance of slogans and taglines.
• The High Court held that slogans are capable of constituting trademarks within the meaning of Sections 2(m) and 2(zb) of the Trade Marks Act where they are capable of distinguishing one person’s goods from those of another.
• The Court particularly noted the increasing importance of slogans in the modern digital marketplace. With the rapid expansion of digital marketing, slogans and taglines can perform a source-identifying function and may, in some cases, become even more readily recognised than the brand or trade name itself.
• This observation could have wider significance for businesses seeking trademark protection for advertising slogans and brand taglines.

“ONE FOR ALL” Has No Immediate Connection With Books: Delhi High Court

• The Division Bench expressly disagreed with the Single Judge’s conclusion that “ONE FOR ALL” was descriptive of Oswaal’s books.
• According to the Court, the expression cannot naturally or immediately be associated with books or other goods falling within Class 16.
• The phrase ordinarily conveys the idea of a single solution capable of replacing multiple alternatives. That meaning, the Court found, does not directly describe books, printed material or other Class 16 goods.
• The Court further observed that “ONE FOR ALL” was not shown to be a common expression used in Class 16 to describe the relevant goods.

No Identical or Deceptively Similar Commercial Use Shown

• Another factor weighing in Oswaal’s favour was the absence of evidence showing commercial use of an identical or deceptively similar mark in Class 16.
• The Court noted that the Registrar had failed to demonstrate such use and that the Examination Report itself contained no objection under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, which deals with relative grounds for refusal based, among other things, on conflict with earlier trademarks.

“ONE FOR ALL” Is Suggestive, Not Descriptive

• The Division Bench ultimately held that the mark did not evoke an immediate connection with books.
• “ONE FOR ALL” could communicate the broader idea of universality or comprehensive coverage, but it did not directly and unequivocally describe books.
• The Court therefore concluded that the expression was, at the highest, suggestive rather than descriptive.
• Even if Oswaal intended to project its publications as a universal solution for different academic needs, some degree of mental process was still necessary to connect the phrase with educational books. This was insufficient to render the mark descriptive.
• Accordingly, the Court held that “ONE FOR ALL” satisfies the statutory requirement of distinctiveness and is capable of registration.

High Court Sets Aside Refusal of Trademark

• The Division Bench consequently set aside both the Single Judge’s judgment and the Registrar of Trade Marks’ refusal order.
• Oswaal’s trademark application was restored to the stage at which it stood when the refusal order was passed, with directions that the application proceed further from that stage.
• The appeal was accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

Key Legal Takeaway

• The judgment reinforces that the use of common English words does not automatically make a trademark non-distinctive. The correct inquiry under Section 9(1)(a) is whether the mark, considered as a whole and in the context of the goods or services concerned, is capable of distinguishing one trader’s goods from another’s.
• It also draws an important distinction between descriptive and suggestive marks. Where the connection between a phrase and the goods is not immediate and requires imagination or mental association, the mark may merely be suggestive—and therefore capable of registration.
• The ruling is particularly relevant to businesses using slogans, taglines and common-word combinations as sub-brands, especially in digital marketing, publishing and consumer-facing industries.

Connected Matter

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Refusal: Composite Marks Containing Geographical Names Are Not Automatically Barred from Registration

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi