IP Case Digest · Trade Marks Act s.20(1)

Section 20(1), Trade Marks Act: case law

3 judgments of the Delhi High Court applying Trade Marks Act s.20(1), from 2023–2024, each with a headnote by BRB Legal.

3judgments
1court
2023–2024years

Maharishi Patanjali Vidya Mandir Samiti v. Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 70/2022

Delhi High Court · Set aside

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).

Maharshi Patanjali Vidya Mandir Samiti v. Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 138/2021

Delhi High Court · Set aside

A multi-class refusal under sections 9(2)(a), 11(1)(a) and 11(1)(b) was set aside after the applicant converted the word mark into a composite device during the appeal and offered to disclaim the word PATANJALI. The added device and surrounding matter distinguished the mark from the citations, and the marks cited on the section 9(2)(b) objection were owned by the applicant itself, so no question of public deception arose.

Aseem Sood v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 106/2021

Delhi High Court · Set aside

Refusal under sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 11(1)(a) set aside. The combined term was not a dictionary word but a joining of two distinct words which, taken together, suggested a brand relating to the care of colours and so was suggestive at best for cosmetics, and it was written in a stylised manner that set it apart. Continuous use since 2013 gave some basis for a claim of acquired distinctiveness. The relative grounds objection fell away because the applicant removed from the mark the element it shared with the cited marks.