- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 145/2021
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
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.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.