Tag: #Trademarks Act

  • Delhi HC-Geographical Names Are Not an Automatic Bar to Trademark Registration

    Delhi HC-Geographical Names Are Not an Automatic Bar to Trademark Registration

    Date: 10.11.2026

    The Delhi High Court has held that a trademark containing a geographical term, the word β€œBank,” and a slogan cannot be refused registration through a blanket finding that it is descriptive or non-distinctive.

    The dispute

    Dubai Islamic Bank challenged the refusal of its application to register the composite mark β€œDUBAI ISLAMIC BANK – THE BETTER WAY TO BANK.” The Trade Marks Registry had rejected the application under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, reasoning that β€œDubai” indicated geographical origin and that the mark was descriptive in nature.

    The Registry also noted that the mark was proposed to be used in India and concluded that the applicant could not rely on acquired reputation through use to overcome the objection.

    What the Court found

    Justice Prathiba M. Singh set aside the refusal, finding that the Registry’s approach was overly general and did not properly assess the mark as a whole.

    The Court emphasized that Section 9 does not impose an automatic bar merely because a mark includes:

    • a geographical reference;
    • descriptive or customary language;
    • the name of a service, such as β€œBank”; or
    • a slogan or tagline.

    Instead, registrability requires a fact-specific assessment of whether the mark, viewed in its complete commercial form, can distinguish one trader’s services from another’s.

    A composite mark must be assessed as a whole

    A central feature of the ruling is the Court’s recognition that the applied-for mark was not limited to the words β€œDubai” and β€œBank.” It also included the expression β€œThe Better Way to Bank.” The Registry had failed to account for this composite structure.

    The Court observed that banks commonly use marks combining a geographic term, the word β€œBank,” and a slogan. The presence of β€œBank” is ordinarily expected for banking services and, by itself, does not establish that the entire mark is inherently non-distinctive. Similarly, use of a location name does not automatically make a mark incapable of registration.

    How distinctiveness should be evaluated

    The judgment explains that distinctiveness under Section 9 is broad and contextual. A mark may be assessed by considering factors such as:

    • the nature and overall character of the mark;
    • the extent and duration of use;
    • priority in adoption internationally;
    • well-known status;
    • advertising and promotional investment;
    • judicial decisions recognizing distinctiveness;
    • reputation in the relevant market;
    • the mark’s composite elements; and
    • the relevant customer base.

    The Court noted that descriptive marks may become registrable when they acquire a secondary meaning. A geographical name can also be registered where distinctiveness is established. Likewise, slogans and taglines are capable of functioning as trademarks.

    Foreign registrations and comparable Indian registrations matter

    Dubai Islamic Bank had pointed to registrations of other banks whose names included geographical references. It also relied on its registrations in numerous countries. The Court held that these materials were relevant and should have been considered rather than disregarded through a formulaic application of the refusal provisions.

    The decision does not mean that every geographically suggestive bank name must be registered. Rather, it requires the Trade Marks Registry to evaluate the evidence and the mark’s full composition before deciding whether registration should be granted.

    Outcome of the case

    The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the refusal order dated 26 March 2019, and remanded the matter to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration.

    On reconsideration, the Registrar was directed to examine:

    • comparable bank marks registered in India that use β€œBank” and geographic references;
    • Dubai Islamic Bank’s global trademark registrations;
    • the registrability of slogans and taglines; and
    • any further material or judicial precedents presented by the applicant at a hearing.

    Why the ruling is significant

    The decision reinforces that trademark examination must be based on the complete mark and the evidence surrounding it, not on isolated words alone. For businesses in regulated or descriptive service sectors, the ruling is particularly relevant: a name that includes a geographic reference or an industry term may still be registrable when its overall presentation has, or is capable of acquiring, distinctive character.

    The key principle is clear: geographic and descriptive elements are relevant to trademark analysis, but they are not automatic grounds for refusing a composite trademark application.

    Connected Matter

    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.

    Handy Download:

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi

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

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

    Date: 03.11.2026

    The Delhi High Court has set aside the Trade Marks Registry’s refusal to register β€œDOUBLE-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 β€œDOUBLE-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 β€œDOUBLE-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 β€œDOUBLE” and β€œCHOICE” are individually common English words, their combination had to be assessed as the composite expression β€œDOUBLE-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 β€œDOUBLE-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 β€œDOUBLE-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 β€œDOUBLE-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 β€œDOUBLE-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.

    Handy Download:

    Ravi Shekhar Jha – Advocate, Bar Council of Delhi