Refusal under section 11(1)(a) and (b) set aside after the applicant converted the word mark into a composite device and offered to disclaim the word PATANJALI. The composite logo, with a book device, a stick figure and a tagline, distinguished it from the cited marks, and the disclaimer answered the objection that PATANJALI stood declared well known. Advertisement before acceptance directed under the proviso to section 20(1).
Refusal under sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b) set aside. The Statement of Grounds gave no reason why the word mark was not distinctive or was descriptive, and nearly a decade of use with documents on record showed acquired distinctiveness. Appeal allowed and the application sent to advertisement under the proviso to section 20.
Refusal under section 11(1)(a) and (b) set aside. Of the cited marks two were likely to be removed for non-renewal and one stood refused, while the only surviving citation was shown to be unused on e-commerce portals. The appellant already held a registration for a mark containing the same element, in use since 2011. Mark allowed to be advertised before acceptance under the proviso to section 20.
Refusal under section 11(1)(a) set aside where the current status of the cited marks, handed over at the hearing, showed two lapsed for non-payment of the renewal fee, two refused and two abandoned. The only surviving citation was a device mark prima facie dissimilar to the applicant's device. The mark was allowed to proceed, subject to a disclaimer.
Refusal under sections 9(1)(b), 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b) set aside. Although one element of the composite mark could be correlated with milk products, paired with the second element it produced a mark that did not describe the goods, so the mark was suggestive at best and not descriptive. Compared as a whole the mark was prima facie dissimilar to the cited marks except for one common word, and the appellant's own earlier registration of the word mark had not even been cited. The order recorded that no documents of use were on record when an affidavit giving sales figures from 1994-95 onwards had been filed and was on the record on the date of hearing.
Refusal under section 11(1)(a) and (b) set aside where the proprietor of the cited mark had already consented to the appellant's use and registration for the very goods applied for. That consent formed part of a settlement recorded on a joint application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on which the earlier suit between the same parties had been decreed. The settlement had been brought to the Senior Examiner's notice in the reply to the examination report but was overlooked, and a binding agreement forming the basis of a court decree made the reasons in the impugned order unsustainable.
Refusal under section 11(1)(a) and (b) and section 18(4) set aside. Of the three cited marks the first was likely to be removed for non-renewal, the second covered different goods and the third had been abandoned. The commonality extended only to the generic word GEM, while the subject mark was a composite device of stripes and stylised words, and the same mark already stood registered for the appellant in seven other classes.
