𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Acts

CESTAT Mumbai: Customs Cannot Deny Duty Exemption by Adopting Incorrect Coal Testing Parameters
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 06.11.2026

CESTAT Mumbai: Customs Cannot Deny Duty Exemption by Adopting Incorrect Coal Testing Parameters

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 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has set aside customs duty demands against JSW Steel Limited and JSW Steel Coated Products Limited, holding that eight consignments of Indonesian coal were correctly classified as steam coal and were eligible for the applicable basic customs duty exemption.

The dispute: steam coal or bituminous coal?

The case concerned coal imported by JSW between April 2012 and January 2013 for use in its captive power plant at Tarapur. JSW declared the consignments as steam coal under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 2701 1920 and claimed exemption from basic customs duty under Serial No. 123 of Notification No. 12/2012-Customs.

Customs authorities later reclassified the imports as bituminous coal under CTI 2701 1200. This reclassification led to demands for differential customs duty, interest and penalties. The department’s position was that the consignments met the statutory parameters for bituminous coal: volatile matter above 14% on a dry, mineral-matter-free basis and calorific value of at least 5,833 kcal/kg on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis.

The central issue was therefore not simply how the coal was used. It was whether Customs had correctly calculated the scientific parameters required under the tariff definition.

Why the Tribunal rejected the department’s calculation

CESTAT found that the department had applied the Parr formula using values on an air-dried basis (ADB). The Tribunal held that this was inconsistent with ASTM D388-12, which requires data on an inherent-moisture-containing basis, equivalent to the as-received basis (ARB), when calculating calorific value on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis.

This distinction was decisive. Air drying removes part of the coal’s moisture, leaving residual moisture rather than its full inherent moisture. Using ADB figures in the formula could artificially inflate the calculated calorific value and make coal appear to meet the threshold for bituminous coal.

The Tribunal applied the Parr formula using the appropriate ARB-based values. For seven of the eight Bills of Entry, the resulting calorific values were below 5,833 kcal/kg. Because both statutory conditions must be met cumulatively for coal to qualify as bituminous coal, these consignments could not be reclassified as bituminous coal.

Discharge-port test reports supported JSW’s declaration

For two consignments, departmental CRCL laboratory reports from the discharge port described the coal as having the characteristics of steam coal. The Tribunal treated these reports as especially relevant because they reflected the goods as imported and presented to Customs for assessment.

It also noted that Customs had not relied on these reports when raising the duty demands, despite including them among the relied-upon documents. Further, the department did not provide an opportunity for re-testing before seeking to impose a later duty liability based on its calculations.

The Tribunal concluded that the discharge-port reports had greater evidentiary value than calculations based on load-port data that did not follow the prescribed methodology.

Classification principles clarified

The ruling draws a clear distinction between coal classification by rank and by use:
- Bituminous coal is defined by the technical thresholds in Chapter 27’s sub-heading note.
- Steam coal is identified under the “other coal” category and is generally associated with use for heating or electricity generation.
- A coal consignment can be treated as bituminous coal only if it meets both prescribed scientific thresholds through proper testing and calculation.
CESTAT held that where the calorific value on a moist, mineral-matter-free basis is below 5,833 kcal/kg, or the volatile-matter condition is not met, the goods cannot be classified as bituminous coal. Where the goods are intended for power generation, they are appropriately classified as steam coal under CTI 2701 1920.

Exemption from basic customs duty upheld

At the relevant time, Notification No. 12/2012-Customs granted a nil rate of basic customs duty for steam coal under CTI 2701 1920, with 1% additional duty. Since the Tribunal found all eight consignments to be correctly classifiable as steam coal, JSW was entitled to the exemption.

As a result, the duty demands failed. The Tribunal also found no need to examine allegations of deliberate misdeclaration, confiscation or penalty because the underlying classification and exemption claim were valid.

Outcome and wider significance

CESTAT set aside the four challenged orders issued by Customs authorities in Mumbai and Goa and allowed JSW’s appeals. The Tribunal’s decision reinforces that customs classification disputes involving technical specifications must be resolved through scientifically correct methods, not by selective conversion of test values.

The ruling is particularly significant for importers of coal and other commodities whose tariff treatment depends on laboratory parameters. It emphasizes that Customs must rely on representative testing, apply recognized standards strictly, consider evidence from the imported goods at the discharge port, and give appropriate weight to favourable departmental test reports. In this case, the Tribunal held that incorrect use of ADB values had led to an unsustainable reclassification.

Proper application of the Parr formula showed that the imports were steam coal, preserving JSW’s duty exemption and eliminating the related duty, interest and penalty exposure.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

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: CESTAT Mumbai

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 6, 2026
Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Registration Applications Without Giving Proper Reasons
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 06.11.2026

Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Registration Applications Without Giving Proper Reasons

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 Delhi High Court set aside the refusal of Skechers’ “RELAXEDFIT” footwear trademark application, holding that the Registrar of Trade Marks cannot reject an application through unexplained, one-line orders.

Background of the dispute

Skechers USA Inc. II, a global footwear manufacturer and the registered owner of the “SKECHERS” mark, adopted “RELAXEDFIT” for footwear in 2008. It obtained registration for the mark in the United States in 2010 and later secured registrations across major jurisdictions, including the European Union, United Kingdom, China, Japan, Australia, the UAE, Russia and several South American countries.

In India, Skechers applied on 8 November 2012 to register a stylised “RELAXEDFIT” device mark in Class 25 for footwear. The Trade Marks Registry raised objections under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Skechers responded that “RELAXEDFIT” was a distinctive coined combination, that the cited marks were not similar, and that the mark’s extensive international registration supported protection in India.

The Registry’s refusal

The Registrar rejected the application on 7 June 2018, stating only that the mark was objectionable under Sections 9 and 11. The order did not explain the factual or legal basis for the objection.

After Skechers sought written grounds through Form TM-M, the Registry again issued a brief refusal in March 2019, merely recording that the mark was objectionable under Sections 9 and 11. Skechers challenged both orders before the Delhi High Court.

Why the Court rejected the refusal orders

Justice Prathiba M. Singh found that both orders were devoid of reasoning and inconsistent with established trademark-law requirements.

A reasoned order is mandatory

The Court relied on the earlier ruling in Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, which held that Section 18(5) of the Trade Marks Act requires the Registrar to record and communicate the grounds for refusal or conditional acceptance in writing.

The Court reaffirmed that Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules cannot be used to issue a decision without reasons and require the applicant to make a separate paid request to discover the basis of refusal. The statutory obligation under Section 18(5) prevails.

Registrability requires a substantive assessment

The Court also referred to its decision in Dubai Islamic Bank v. Union of India, which explains that a registrar assessing distinctiveness should consider the mark’s character, use, global adoption, reputation, advertising, judicial recognition and composite nature.

In Skechers’ case, the Registry had not meaningfully evaluated the stylised composite mark, Skechers’ evidence of use, or its substantial portfolio of international registrations. A generic reference to Sections 9 and 11 was not enough.

Section 11 objection raised at the examination stage

Skechers also argued that the Section 11 objection was inappropriate at this stage because Section 11(5) limits certain relative-grounds objections to opposition proceedings. While the Court’s decision principally turned on the absence of reasons, the argument reinforced the need for a legally grounded, specific assessment rather than a formulaic refusal.

The Court’s decision

The High Court set aside both refusal orders and directed that Skechers’ Indian application no. 2425633 for “RELAXEDFIT” in Class 25 proceed toward registration.

The registration is subject to the following disclaimer:

“No exclusive rights in the words ‘RELAXED’ separately and ‘FIT’ separately, except as a combination and in the manner in which it is depicted in the present application.”

The Court further directed that the mark be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal within three months, subject to this condition. The order does not decide the merits of any opposition that may be filed after advertisement.

Key legal implications
- Trademark refusals must contain reasons. A bare statement that a mark is objectionable under statutory provisions does not meet the Registrar’s legal duty.
- Composite marks must be assessed as a whole. Descriptive elements may be disclaimed individually while the overall combination and presentation remain registrable.
- International registrations are relevant evidence. They do not automatically guarantee Indian registration, but they are material to the assessment of distinctiveness and should be considered.
- Applicants may secure protection with tailored disclaimers. A disclaimer can preserve the public’s right to use common words while protecting the distinctive manner in which those words are combined and represented.
The ruling strengthens procedural accountability at the Trade Marks Registry and confirms that an applicant’s evidence of distinctiveness, use and global recognition requires genuine consideration before a mark is refused.

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:

“Handy Order For Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 6, 2026
Chhattisgarh HC: No Direct Recovery from Accused, Co-Accused Already on Bail — NDPS Bail Granted
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 06.11.2026

Chhattisgarh HC: No Direct Recovery from Accused, Co-Accused Already on Bail — NDPS Bail Granted

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 High Court of Chhattisgarh has granted regular bail to Arif Hussain, relying substantially on parity with a co-accused who had already been released on bail by the Supreme Court.

Background of the case

The order was passed by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey on 5 November 2026 in MCRC No. 9416 of 2026. Arif Hussain, 26, was seeking his first regular-bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

He was arrested in connection with Crime No. 364/2024 at Gandhinagar Police Station, Surguja district. The case involves allegations under Sections 22(C), 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

According to the prosecution, police intercepted an Alto car bearing registration number JH 01 DC 3645 and seized 1,500 Rexogesic Buprenorphine Injection IP ampoules of 2 ml each, totalling 3,000 ml. The alleged recovery was made from co-accused Pankajdhar Dubey. Arif Hussain was subsequently arrested after his name emerged in Dubey’s memorandum statement.

Arguments before the Court

Counsel for Arif Hussain argued that he had been falsely implicated because the alleged contraband was not recovered from his exclusive possession. The defence also submitted that the allegation against him was based solely on the memorandum statement of the co-accused.

A central submission was that Pankajdhar Dubey, from whose possession the prosecution alleges the contraband was recovered, had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court on 24 July 2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 11633/2026. The applicant had been in custody since 19 March 2026, the charge-sheet had been filed, and the trial was expected to take time. The defence acknowledged that Hussain had one prior criminal antecedent and sought bail on the principle of parity.

The State opposed the request but did not dispute that the co-accused had received bail from the Supreme Court.

Court’s reasoning

After considering the case diary, the Court noted the seriousness of the allegations but found it appropriate to extend bail without commenting on the merits of the prosecution’s case.

The Court took account of the Supreme Court’s bail order for the co-accused, including the fact that the co-accused was the person from whose instance the alleged contraband had been recovered. It also noted that Hussain’s name had surfaced through the co-accused’s memorandum statement and that he had one similar criminal antecedent registered in 2024.

The order records that Hussain had been absconding before being arrested on 19 March 2026. Even so, the Court concluded that the overall circumstances, particularly the parity consideration, justified grant of regular bail.

Bail order and conditions

The High Court directed that Arif Hussain be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety for the same amount, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The release is subject to three conditions:
1. No witness interference: He must not directly or indirectly induce, threaten or promise anything to any person familiar with the facts of the case to discourage disclosure before the court.
2. No prejudice to the trial: He must not act in any way that could affect the fairness or speedy conduct of the trial.
3. Mandatory court appearances: He must appear before the trial court on every date fixed until the case is disposed of.
Significance of the order

The decision illustrates the importance of parity in bail proceedings, particularly where a co-accused connected to the alleged recovery has already been granted bail by a higher court. At the same time, the order does not decide the merits of the NDPS allegations; it only permits release during the pendency of the criminal trial, subject to strict conditions.

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: Chhattisgarh High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 6, 2026
Madras High Court Clarifies Test for Descriptive and Composite Trademarks
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 05.11.2026

Madras High Court Clarifies Test for Descriptive and Composite Trademarks

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 Madras High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register “GIRL POWER PROJECT” in Class 41, holding that the mark must be assessed as a whole and is capable of distinguishing the applicant’s services.

The decision, delivered on 19 July 2024 by Justice P.B. Balaji, reinforces an important trademark principle: a composite word mark cannot be refused simply by separating its individual words and treating them as descriptive. The Court directed the Registry to resume processing the application within three months.

Background of the dispute

Just Lime My Child Foundation, a non-profit organisation working to improve healthcare, personal care, education and micro-enterprise opportunities for women and girls, applied to register the word mark “GIRL POWER PROJECT” in Class 41.

The Foundation stated that it had operated the initiative under this name since 2014. Its programme focuses on supporting girls through the challenges of adolescence and helping them avoid outcomes such as early marriage, early pregnancy and disease, while promoting education and economic independence. The organisation also began operating the project in India in 2020.

Despite this background, the Trade Marks Registry rejected the application on 8 February 2024 under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registry considered the phrase descriptive of girl empowerment and therefore not eligible for registration.

The Foundation’s case

The appellant argued that the Registry had wrongly broken the mark into separate descriptive elements instead of considering the expression “GIRL POWER PROJECT” as one composite mark. It also pointed out that the same mark had already been registered in the United States and Uganda.

The Foundation relied on decisions recognising that the registrability of a word combination depends on the overall impression created by the complete mark, not merely on whether individual words may have descriptive meanings. It submitted that the phrase was not confined to describing girl empowerment services and was distinctive of its broader charitable activities.

Why the Court disagreed with the Registry

The Court found that the refusal order did not explain adequately why the complete mark was barred by Section 9(1)(b). Its reasoning identified several flaws:
- The mark was improperly dissected. The Registry examined the expression in parts rather than evaluating “GIRL POWER PROJECT” as a composite whole.
- The refusal lacked supporting analysis. Although the Registry called the mark descriptive or common to trade, it did not provide a meaningful discussion supporting that conclusion.
- Relevant overseas registrations were not considered. The Court noted that registrations in the United States and Uganda had been brought to the Registry’s attention but were not addressed.
- The mark could distinguish the Foundation’s services. The Court held that the organisation’s objectives and activities were broader than the particular Class 41 services cited by the Registry. The mark was therefore capable of distinguishing its services from those of other entities.
The Court referred approvingly to the principle that even where individual terms may have descriptive connotations, their combination may still be distinctive if the expression as a whole differs from the ordinary way in which consumers describe the relevant goods or services.

Distinguishing the Registry’s cited precedent

The Registry relied on a Delhi High Court decision concerning the mark “SWISS MILITARY.” The Madras High Court found that decision inapplicable.

That earlier case involved an opposition and concerns over a mark suggesting a geographical origin that could mislead the public. By contrast, the “GIRL POWER PROJECT” dispute concerned a refusal based on alleged descriptiveness. The Court held that the factual and legal context of the “SWISS MILITARY” decision did not support the Registry’s position.

Outcome and significance

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Registry’s refusal, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to process the application in accordance with law within three months of receiving the order. No costs were awarded.

The ruling is significant for trademark applicants using multi-word marks with suggestive or descriptive elements. It confirms that the legal test is not whether isolated words have ordinary meanings, but whether the mark, viewed in its entirety, can identify and distinguish the applicant’s services. A refusal under Section 9(1)(b) must also be supported by clear reasoning tied to the complete mark and the services for which protection is sought.

For “GIRL POWER PROJECT,” the Court concluded that the expression was distinctive enough to proceed through the registration process rather than being rejected at the threshold.

Connected Matter

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

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: Madras High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 5, 2026
Gujarat High Court Grants Regular Bail in NDPS Case After Charge-Sheet Filing
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 05.11.2026

Gujarat High Court Grants Regular Bail in NDPS Case After Charge-Sheet Filing

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 granted regular bail to Meman Mahmadfejan Usmangani in an NDPS case, stressing that prolonged custody after completion of investigation should not become a form of pre-trial punishment.

Case at a glance

On 4 November 2026, Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad allowed a successive regular-bail application filed after submission of the charge-sheet. The case arises from FIR No. 11217014260400 of 2026 at Kakoshi Police Station, Patan, alleging offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The applicant had been in custody since 11 July 2026. The Court ordered his release on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety for the same amount, subject to specified conditions.

Allegations in the case

According to the order, the prosecution alleged that a co-accused possessed and sold narcotic cough syrup and pregabalin capsules without a drug licence, supporting documents, or a doctor’s prescription. The seized material included:
- 94 bottles of Corex cough syrup, each containing 100 ml of codeine phosphate, valued at Rs. 16,743.28;
- 15 strips of pregabalin capsules, each strip containing 10 capsules, valued at Rs. 4,176.
The allegation against the applicant was that he had supplied the contraband to the co-accused. The co-accused, from whose conscious possession the material was allegedly recovered, had already been released on bail.

Why the Court granted bail

The Court considered several circumstances in favour of the applicant:
- Investigation was complete: The police had filed the charge-sheet, reducing the need for custodial interrogation.
- No further recovery was required: The Court noted that there was nothing left to recover or discover from the applicant.
- No criminal antecedents: The applicant had no prior criminal record noted in the order.
- Parity with the co-accused: The co-accused from whom the alleged contraband was recovered had been granted bail.
- Trial may take time: The Court observed that commencement and completion of the trial would take time.
- No demonstrated need for continued detention: The prosecution had not shown circumstances justifying further incarceration.
The Court referred to established bail principles, including the Supreme Court decisions in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. It reiterated that “bail is a rule and jail is exception,” linking the principle to the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21.

Bail conditions

The applicant must comply with conditions designed to ensure his availability for trial and prevent interference with the case. These include:
1. Not misusing the liberty granted by the Court.
2. Not acting against the prosecution’s interests or tampering with evidence.
3. Surrendering any passport to the trial court within one week.
4. Not leaving Gujarat without prior permission from the trial court.
5. Reporting to the relevant police station once each month for six months, between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.
6. Providing Aadhaar details, email address and current residential address to the investigating officer and the court, and not changing residence or contact number without prior permission.
7. Not engaging in any illegal activity.
The order also states that breach of these conditions may lead to a warrant or cancellation of bail. Release remains subject to the applicant not being required in any other offence.

Significance of the order

The ruling illustrates the Court’s approach to regular bail after a charge-sheet has been filed. While the allegations involve narcotic substances, the Court balanced the seriousness of the case against factors such as completed investigation, absence of prior antecedents, lack of need for further recovery, bail granted to the co-accused, and the likely duration of trial.

Importantly, the Court clarified that its preliminary observations for deciding bail must not influence the trial court’s assessment of evidence during the criminal trial. The grant of bail is therefore not a finding on guilt or innocence; it is a conditional release while the case proceeds.

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

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 5, 2026
CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Gold Confiscation After GST Records Support Lawful Domestic Purchase
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 05.11.2026

CESTAT Ahmedabad Quashes Gold Confiscation After GST Records Support Lawful Domestic Purchase

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 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Ahmedabad has allowed the appeals of V. Navinchandra Hirachand Malji Jewellers & Co. and its authorised signatory, ruling that Customs could not sustain confiscation of two foreign-marked gold bars after the appellants produced GST invoices, stock records and a documented domestic transit trail that the Department did not properly investigate.

The dispute: 200 grams of foreign-marked gold seized in domestic transit

The case concerned two gold bars weighing 200 grams, marked “ARGOR-HERAEUS, SA” and assessed at 999 purity. The bars were valued at Rs. 12.10 lakh and were being transported within India through an angadia carrier when DRI officers intercepted the parcels outside Kalupur Railway Station, Ahmedabad, on 7 June 2023.

Customs treated the bars as smuggled because of their foreign refinery markings and the absence of import documents accompanying the shipment. The goods were subsequently seized, absolutely confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962, and penalties were imposed on both the jewellery firm and its authorised signatory.

The adjudication order imposed separate penalties of Rs. 1.50 lakh under Section 112(b) and Rs. 25,000 under Section 117 on each appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and penalties, prompting the appellants to approach CESTAT.

The jeweller’s case: domestic purchases were recorded and supported

The appellants did not dispute that the gold bars were foreign-origin products. Their central case was that foreign manufacture does not, by itself, establish illegal importation.

They relied on:
- GST purchase invoices from Surat-based suppliers, including N.R. Jewellers and Vidhi Jewellers;
- their trading stock ledger;
- entries showing an opening gold stock of 400 grams and subsequent purchases of 450 grams and 80.6 grams from the stated suppliers; and
- documentation supplied to the angadia carrier for the domestic consignment.
According to the appellants, the 200 grams were sent to Pahini Jewellers Ltd., Ahmedabad, toward settlement of outstanding dues arising from earlier jewellery purchases. They argued that once they furnished domestic purchase records, the Department had to verify the suppliers and disprove the claimed lawful supply chain.

Customs’ position: local invoices could not replace import documents

The Department argued that Section 123 of the Customs Act places the burden on the possessor or claimant of seized gold to prove that it is not smuggled. It submitted that GST invoices and stock ledgers were insufficient because they did not trace the specific bars to lawful import documents, such as Bills of Entry or customs-clearance records.

Revenue also relied on the authorised signatory’s statement that the business had not obtained import documents from suppliers and that gold sold in retail could possibly have entered through Mumbai or Surat airports. It contended that the foreign refinery marks, 999 purity and lack of import documentation justified the reasonable belief that the goods were smuggled.

Tribunal’s finding: the evidentiary burden shifted after credible domestic records were produced

CESTAT held that the Department’s case failed because the appellants had produced invoices through the GST system, stock records and documentation consistent with the stated purity of the seized gold. There was no allegation that the suppliers had not actually supplied the goods or that the GST invoices were fabricated.

The Tribunal also gave weight to the angadia partner’s statement. The carrier confirmed that it had received delivery challans and invoices relating to the consignment and that it routinely transported valuable goods on the basis of customer-supplied documentation.

On these facts, the Tribunal concluded that the initial burden under Section 123 had been met sufficiently to require the Department to investigate further. Customs should have verified the suppliers, examined whether their records were genuine and determined whether the supply chain was tainted. It did not do so.

The Tribunal emphasized that where a GST-recorded invoice, matching purity details and accounting entries exist at both the supplier and purchaser levels, foreign markings alone cannot displace the documentary evidence. It also noted that lawful channels for foreign gold bullion exist, including authorised channels such as banks and GIFT City-related arrangements.

Why the seizure was set aside

The decisive issue was not whether the bars were foreign-made, but whether the evidence established that they were smuggled. CESTAT found that Customs had not investigated the upstream supply chain despite having supplier details and contemporaneous invoices.

The Tribunal observed that if the gold were offending goods in the appellants’ hands, the same concern would extend to the suppliers in the chain. Yet the Department neither investigated all relevant parties nor issued them show-cause notices. In the face of unchallenged documentary records, the Department could not maintain that it had a sustainable reasonable belief that the gold was smuggled.

Outcome and legal significance

CESTAT Ahmedabad vacated the seizure, set aside the confiscation and granted consequential relief to the appellants. The appeals were allowed by Final Order Nos. 10810-10811/2026, pronounced on 4 November 2026.

The ruling reinforces an important principle in inland gold-seizure cases: foreign refinery markings and high purity may trigger scrutiny, but they do not conclusively prove smuggling where the claimant produces credible, GST-backed domestic purchase and stock documentation. Once such records establish a plausible and documented supply chain, Customs must conduct a meaningful supplier-side verification rather than reject the records solely because direct import documents are unavailable.

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: CESTAT Ahmedabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 5, 2026
Delhi High Court Rejects Bare Refusal of Slogan Trademark Application
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 04.11.2026

Delhi High Court Rejects Bare Refusal of Slogan Trademark Application

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 Delhi High Court held that the slogan “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” could function as a trademark and set aside its refusal because the Trade Marks Registry gave no adequate reasons to treat it as non-distinctive or descriptive.

Background of the dispute

A Dot Limited applied to register “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” as a trademark for goods and services in Classes 16, 25, 26, 41 and 45. These classes broadly cover items such as printed matter, clothing, lace and embroidery-related goods, education and entertainment services, and certain personal or legal services.

The Trade Marks Registry refused the application in December 2018. Its stated basis was Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars registration of marks that are:
- devoid of distinctive character; or
- exclusively descriptive of the kind, quality, purpose, or other characteristics of the relevant goods or services.
Although the refusal order also referred to Section 11, which concerns conflict with earlier trademarks, the accompanying grounds did not explain any such objection or identify conflicting marks. The Court therefore confined its review to the Section 9 objections.

Why the Court disagreed with the refusal

The Court found that the Registry had not provided a reasoned basis for concluding that “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” lacked distinctiveness or described the applicant’s goods and services.

The phrase is made up of ordinary English words, but that alone does not make it unregistrable. The Court treated it as a tagline or slogan capable of operating as a source identifier, provided it does not directly describe the relevant products or services.

In ordinary use, “What do you see?” is a question inviting a person’s perception, interpretation, opinion, or observation. It does not describe the time, quality, quantity, intended purpose, or another characteristic of the goods and services covered by A Dot Limited’s application. As a result, the phrase was not inherently descriptive in the way Section 9(1)(b) requires.

The Court also noted its earlier view that slogans and taglines should be assessed like word marks when a trademark application is examined.

Additional factors considered

The decision records that A Dot Limited had obtained registrations for the identical mark in jurisdictions including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel. It also noted that an Indian device mark containing the same phrase as a tagline had already been registered.

These facts did not replace the statutory analysis under Indian law, but they supported the conclusion that the phrase was capable of functioning as a trademark.

The Court’s directions

The High Court allowed the appeal and issued the following directions:
1. Set aside the refusal order and statement of grounds.
2. Direct the Trade Marks Registry to process the application.
3. Require advertisement of the mark within three months.
4. Preserve the right of third parties to oppose, with any opposition to be decided independently on its merits.
5. Limit protection to the complete phrase “WHAT DO YOU SEE?” used as a combination of words.
6. Deny exclusive rights in the individual words “WHAT,” “DO,” “YOU,” or “SEE?” separately. This limitation must be reflected in the Trade Marks Journal if the application proceeds to registration.
Key legal takeaway for trademark applicants

This ruling reinforces that a slogan cannot be rejected merely because it consists of dictionary words. The relevant question is whether, in relation to the specified goods and services, the phrase directly describes their characteristics or is incapable of distinguishing one trader’s offerings from another’s.

For brand owners, the decision is particularly useful where a proposed mark is a short tagline, question, or expressive phrase. A clear explanation of how the phrase functions as a badge of commercial origin, coupled with evidence of use or registration where available, can help address objections based on lack of distinctiveness or descriptiveness.

At the same time, the case illustrates an important limitation: registration of a phrase may protect only the phrase as a whole, not the ordinary words within it.

The outcome preserves room for others to use common words fairly and independently while allowing the combined expression to proceed through the trademark-registration process.

Connected Matter

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

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:

“Handy Order for download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 4, 2026
Delhi HC Says Right to Speedy Trial Can Prevail Over Section 37 NDPS Rigours
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 04.11.2026

Delhi HC Says Right to Speedy Trial Can Prevail Over Section 37 NDPS Rigours

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 Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to an accused in a commercial-quantity narcotics case, holding that the prolonged delay in trial and the absence of any delay attributable to the accused justified relief despite the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act.

Case background

In Harikrishnan PS v. Narcotics Control Bureau, decided on 2 November 2026, the accused sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c), and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These provisions concern possession, dealing, and conspiracy relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

According to the prosecution, authorities intercepted a DTDC parcel bearing the accused’s name and particulars. The parcel allegedly contained 480 grams of charas and 60 grams of methamphetamine. The prosecution further alleged that, after the accused was apprehended from a guesthouse, an additional 140 grams of methamphetamine was recovered at his instance.

Because the alleged recovery involved commercial quantity, the restrictive “twin conditions” for bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act ordinarily applied.

Why the Court granted bail

The central issue was not the alleged quantity of contraband, but the continued incarceration of the accused amid a trial that had made limited progress.

The accused had been in custody since 7 December 2021. Of the 26 prosecution witnesses listed, only eight had been examined by the time the bail application was considered. Further delay was expected because co-accused Nafi had been arrested later, requiring the witnesses already examined to be recalled.

Importantly, the Narcotics Control Bureau fairly accepted before the Court that the delay in trial could not be attributed to the accused. The Court also noted that another co-accused, Paschal, had already been granted bail on 12 August 2026 on the ground of trial delay.

Expeditious trial and Section 37 of the NDPS Act

Section 37 makes bail in commercial-quantity NDPS cases particularly difficult. Generally, a court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

However, the High Court reaffirmed that the constitutional requirement of an expeditious trial can affect the application of these strict conditions. Where an accused remains in custody for a substantial period, the trial is moving slowly, and the accused is not responsible for the delay, continued detention may become unjustified.

The Court found that the trial was not likely to conclude within a reasonable time. In those circumstances, it held that there was no reason to deprive the accused of liberty any further.

Bail conditions

The Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the accused on furnishing:
- a personal bond of Rs.50,000; and
- one surety of the same amount,
subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

The order was also directed to be promptly sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent so that the accused could be informed.

Key legal significance

This ruling highlights an important safeguard in NDPS prosecutions: stringent statutory bail restrictions do not eliminate the accused’s right to a timely trial. Even in cases involving alleged commercial quantities, courts may grant bail where detention becomes prolonged, the prosecution has examined only a small portion of its witnesses, and the accused has not caused the delay.

The decision reinforces that criminal trials must proceed with reasonable speed, particularly where a person’s liberty has been restricted for years without a foreseeable conclusion to the case.

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:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 4, 2026
CESTAT Allahabad Holds Customs Refund Claim Not Time-Barred Where Amount Was Security
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 04.11.2026

CESTAT Allahabad Holds Customs Refund Claim Not Time-Barred Where Amount Was Security

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 Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad, has held that Rs. 30 lakh deposited by Tin Manufacturing Company of India under directions of the Allahabad High Court was a court-directed deposit, not customs duty, and therefore the one-year refund limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 did not apply.

Background of the dispute

The dispute dates back to 1987, when M/s Tin Manufacturing Company of India imported tin sheets at Mumbai. Customs alleged that the goods had been misdeclared, after which they were transferred to the Central Warehousing Corporation’s public bonded warehouse at Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad.

The then Collector of Customs, Bombay decided the matter in the company’s favour in October 1989. When the company later sought clearance of the warehoused goods, Customs required it to file an ex-bond bill of entry. The company challenged this requirement before the Allahabad High Court.

During the writ proceedings, the High Court directed the company to deposit Rs. 30 lakh in cash and furnish a bank guarantee of Rs. 13.15 lakh to secure release of the goods. The company complied and obtained release.

The writ petition was later dismissed for want of prosecution in 2009. Subsequent recall applications were unsuccessful. However, in February 2018, the High Court clarified that, if entitled to a customs refund, the company could pursue the appropriate legal remedy.

Why the refund claim was rejected earlier

The company filed a refund claim for Rs. 18,91,396. The Customs department rejected it, initially in 2019 and again after remand in 2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on two principal grounds:
- The claimant had not produced documents considered sufficient under Section 27(1A) of the Customs Act.
- The claim had been filed almost 20 years after the amount was paid, far beyond the one-year limitation applicable to refunds of customs duty.
The appellate authority treated the Rs. 30 lakh payment and the Rs. 13.15 lakh bank guarantee as part of a customs-duty liability said to be Rs. 43.15 lakh.

Tribunal’s key finding: the amount was a deposit, not duty

CESTAT disagreed with that approach. It found that no proper customs assessment had been made when the cash deposit and bank guarantee were furnished. Both were provided solely because the High Court had required security for release of the goods.

The Tribunal placed particular weight on the nature of the bank guarantee. Customs duty is not paid through a bank guarantee; its presence showed that the amounts were security deposits toward a possible future liability rather than assessed customs duty.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the payment could not be treated as customs duty merely because Customs later sought to characterize it that way. Since the claim concerned recovery of a court-directed deposit rather than a refund of assessed duty, the limitation and evidentiary requirements relied upon under Section 27(1A) did not govern the case.

Legal principles applied by CESTAT

The Tribunal relied on the principle that an amount paid without a legally determined tax liability does not automatically acquire the character of tax or duty. It referred to decisions including Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore v. KVR Construction and the ruling upheld in Credible Engineering v. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise.

Those decisions recognize that statutory refund limitation provisions do not bar repayment where the amount was paid under a mistake of law or was not legally payable as tax in the first place. The underlying rationale is that the government cannot retain money when it had no authority to treat it as a legally due tax or duty.

Final order and implications

CESTAT set aside the order rejecting the refund. It held that Tin Manufacturing Company of India is entitled to the refund, together with applicable interest calculated from the date of the High Court-directed deposit until the date the refund is made.

The ruling is significant for customs disputes involving deposits, pre-deposits, securities, or payments made under court directions. It reinforces that the substance of a payment matters more than its label: where there is no final assessment or established duty liability, a court-directed payment may remain a refundable deposit rather than customs duty subject to the standard statutory refund deadline.

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: CESTAT Allahabad

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 4, 2026
Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Marks Based on Imaginary or Conjectural Descriptiveness
Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 03.11.2026

Delhi HC: Trademark Registry Cannot Reject Marks Based on Imaginary or Conjectural Descriptiveness

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 Delhi High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register “DOUBLE-CHOICE” for rice, flour and cereal preparations, holding that the mark must be assessed as a whole and that a proposed-to-be-used application cannot be rejected for lacking acquired distinctiveness through use.

Background of the dispute

Kapil Goyal applied on 20 June 2023 to register “DOUBLE-CHOICE” in Class 30 for rice, flour and preparations made from cereals. The application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, meaning the mark had not yet been used in the marketplace.

The Trade Marks Registry objected under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It concluded that the mark lacked distinctiveness, was composed of non-distinctive words, and was descriptive of the kind and intended purpose of the relevant goods. The Registry also found that the mark had not acquired secondary meaning because it had not been used in the market.

Following a hearing, the application was refused on 24 January 2025. Kapil Goyal appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Act.

Key issues before the Court

The dispute centred on three connected questions:
- Whether “DOUBLE-CHOICE” was inherently incapable of distinguishing one trader’s goods from those of another.
- Whether the expression directly described rice, flour or cereal preparations.
- Whether the absence of prior market use could justify refusal of an application filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.
The Court’s findings

A composite trademark cannot be broken into isolated words

The Court held that a trademark must be evaluated in its entirety. Although “DOUBLE” and “CHOICE” are individually common English words, their combination had to be assessed as the composite expression “DOUBLE-CHOICE”.

On that basis, the Court found that the expression was not so common or devoid of distinction that it could not identify the commercial source of the applicant’s goods. The Registry had not identified any identical or similar marks, nor had it explained why use of “DOUBLE-CHOICE” would make it impossible for consumers to distinguish the applicant’s goods from those of other traders.

The mark was not shown to be descriptive

The Registry had reasoned that “DOUBLE-CHOICE” referred to a situation involving two options and therefore described a variety or consumer choice connected with the products. The Court rejected that reasoning as unsupported by evidence.

It noted that the refusal order did not clarify which products consumers would supposedly be choosing between. There was no factual material showing that the mark denoted product variety, two alternatives, or any feature of the rice and cereal goods. The Court characterized this conclusion as conjectural rather than evidence-based.

A mark is not descriptive merely because its words have dictionary meanings. To attract the statutory bar, the expression must directly indicate a characteristic, quality, kind, purpose or other attribute of the specific goods. The Court found no such direct connection between “DOUBLE-CHOICE” and rice, flour or cereal preparations.

Non-use is irrelevant for a proposed-to-be-used application

The Court also held that the Registry’s reliance on non-use and lack of secondary meaning was legally misplaced. Where an application is expressly filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, the applicant cannot be expected to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness through actual market use.

Requiring proof of prior use in such cases would undermine the statutory recognition of proposed-to-be-used trademark applications. The relevant inquiry was whether the mark was registrable on its own merits, not whether it had already acquired a reputation through use.

Outcome

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the refusal order dated 24 January 2025, and directed the Trade Marks Registry to advertise “DOUBLE-CHOICE” in Class 30. After advertisement, the application is to proceed in accordance with the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

Why the ruling matters

This decision reinforces important principles for trademark applicants and examiners:
- Assess the mark as a whole: Common individual words do not automatically make their combination non-distinctive.
- Require a direct descriptive link: A refusal for descriptiveness must be tied to a real and immediate characteristic of the claimed goods, not a speculative association.
- Give reasoned decisions: A refusal should explain why the mark cannot distinguish the applicant’s goods and should be grounded in relevant material.
- Respect proposed-to-be-used filings: Absence of market use cannot be treated as a defect where the application is validly filed on that basis.
The ruling offers a clear reminder that trademark examination must rest on the actual commercial impression created by a mark and on evidence-based reasoning, rather than on the separate meanings of its component words.

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:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com

Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi
Share this:
X
Facebook
Like this:
Like Loading…
November 3, 2026