BRB Legal

IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.18(4)

Section 18(4), Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Delhi High Court and the Calcutta High Court applying Trade Marks Act s.18(4), from 2023–2026, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
2courts
2023–2026years

Kapil Goyal v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 15/2025

Delhi High Court · Allowed

Refusal of a mark as descriptive set aside. The Court held that the reasoning was imaginary and based on conjecture: the order never clarified which products consumers were supposed to be choosing between, and there was no factual material to support the conclusion that the mark denoted a variety of goods. Decisively, the application was filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, so there was no prior use from which any conclusion about consumer options could be drawn, and the order was silent on that aspect.

Visa International Ltd. v. Visa International Service Association & Anr.

Calcutta High Court · Remanded

Three appeals allowed, the opposition orders set aside and the matters remanded to the Registrar to be decided by a competent officer. The orders had been passed by Associate Managers of Trade Marks engaged on contract. The Court held that the Registrar's function under the Trade Marks Act is quasi-judicial, that the power to delegate under section 3(2) is a power to delegate administrative functions only, since quasi-judicial functions must be performed independently and not under the superintendence or direction of anyone, and that Associate Managers so appointed are not empowered to pass quasi-judicial orders. No post of Associate Manager appears in the 2011 Recruitment Rules. In two of the appeals the officer's own engagement letter showed his term had expired before the date of the order.

Mankind Pharma Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 2/2023

Delhi High Court · Rectification allowed

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.

Other provisions of the Trade Marks Act

All 233 judgments on the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Search the IP Case Digest