Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration
Date: 13.10.2026
Gujarat HC: Section 20 Permits Trademark Advertisement Even Where Section 11(1) Objections Exist
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Gujarat High Court has set aside the rejection of Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Private Limitedβs trademark application for βGlypantaβ and directed the Trade Marks Registry to advertise the application within three months, leaving any third-party opposition to be decided on its merits.
Court restores the trademark application to the advertisement stage
In Lincoln Pharmaceuticals Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., the High Court of Gujarat considered an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The appeal challenged the Trade Marks Registryβs order dated 11 August 2025, which had rejected Lincoln Pharmaceuticalsβ application to register the trademark βGlypanta.β
The Court, in an oral order dated 20 November 2025, quashed the rejection and directed the Registry to proceed with advertisement of the application under the proviso to Section 20 of the Act.
Background of the dispute
Lincoln Pharmaceuticals had applied on 22 August 2023 to register βGlypantaβ under Section 18(1) of the Trade Marks Act. Following examination, the Trade Marks Registry raised objections, including objections under Section 11(1), which concerns the likelihood of confusion with earlier trademarks.
The company submitted a detailed response to the examination report on 30 October 2023. It argued that the grounds in its response had not been properly considered before the application was rejected.
A key submission was that, even where trademarks fall within the same class, differences in the pharmaceutical composition of the relevant products may reduce the likelihood of consumer confusion. The appellant relied on a Delhi High Court decision that recognized different compositions as an additional factor that can mitigate confusion between pharmaceutical marks.
Why the High Court intervened
The Court focused on the statutory mechanism in Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act. This provision permits the Registrar to advertise a trademark application even where objections under Sections 9, 11(1), or 11(2) remain relevant, allowing interested third parties to oppose the application after publication.
Lincoln Pharmaceuticals contended that its application had been rejected before it was published in the Trade Marks Journal. It argued that publication would allow it to present its case fully and would preserve the opportunity for any third party to raise objections through the formal opposition process.
The Court accepted that Section 20 permits advertisement despite objections under Section 11(1). It also noted that the dispute was at a pre-publication stage, so the non-joinder of a private opposing party did not prevent the appeal from being decided.
The Courtβs directions
The High Court issued the following directions:
- Rejection order set aside: The order dated 11 August 2025 rejecting the βGlypantaβ application was quashed.
- Advertisement required: The Trade Marks Registry must advertise the application in accordance with the proviso to Section 20 of the Trade Marks Act.
- Three-month timeframe: Advertisement must be completed within three months of the Registry receiving the Courtβs order.
- Opposition remains open: If any opposition is filed after advertisement, it must be decided independently on its merits.
What the ruling means for trademark applicants
The decision underscores that an objection based on potential similarity with an earlier mark does not necessarily require immediate rejection of an application. Where the law permits advertisement, publication can allow the trademark registration process to move forward while protecting the rights of other parties through the opposition mechanism.
For pharmaceutical trademark applicants, the ruling also highlights the relevance of product-specific factors. Differences in pharmaceutical composition may be material when assessing whether two marks are likely to confuse consumers, particularly where marks cover products in the same class.
The order does not grant final registration of βGlypanta.β Instead, it restores the application to the advertisement stage, where third parties retain the right to oppose it and the Registry must assess any such opposition on its own merits.
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: Gujarat High Court
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707
Leave a Reply