- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 88/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- C. Hari Shankar
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Refusal of a word mark for travel and tourism services under sections 9(1)(a) and 9(1)(b) set aside. On section 9(1)(a), lack of distinctive character means the mark is not such as would enable the applicant's goods or services to be distinguished from another's, and there was no evidence to that effect: the Examiner referred to no other proprietor holding a registration for the expression or anything similar, and the phrase was not so commonplace as to be inherently lacking in distinctiveness. On section 9(1)(b), there is a difference between descriptive marks, which the provision proscribes, and suggestive marks, which are entitled to registration; the mark could not be treated as descriptive of travel services merely because those services might involve travel to various places. Section 9(1)(b) cannot be used to refuse any word mark which has some relationship, howsoever distant, with the goods or services applied for. The Court also criticised the practice, sanctioned by Rule 36(1), of passing an unreasoned refusal and then requiring the applicant to apply and pay for the grounds of decision, calling it an unwholesome practice.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.