Summary
ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd., a liquor company, applied to register OFFER in Class 33, and the Registrar of Trade Marks refused it because the word is used in common parlance for discounts and is not unique. The Delhi High Court set the refusal aside, holding that the order was cryptic and applied a wrong test. The court clarified that Section 9(1)(a) Trade Marks Act asks whether a mark can distinguish the applicant's goods, and that distinctiveness must be judged against the specific goods. The ruling matters to every applicant facing a boilerplate objection to an ordinary English word.
Background
A single English word that shoppers associate with discounts spent over three years in the Trade Marks Registry before being refused as “not unique”. The Delhi High Court has now held that the Registrar asked the wrong question, and its reading of Section 9(1)(a) Trade Marks Act helps applicants of common-word marks.
ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (“ADS Spirits”) belongs to the ADS Group, a liquor conglomerate behind brands such as Royal Green Whisky and Double Blue Whisky, with sales above Rs. 7,500 crores as of March 2025. On 3 July 2022, ADS Spirits applied for registration of the word mark OFFER in Class 33 (application no. 5514779), on a proposed-to-be-used basis, for “alcoholic beverages, except beers; alcoholic preparations for making beverages”.
The Registrar of Trade Marks (“Registrar”) issued an examination report on 18 November 2022 under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”), stating that the mark was a common surname, personal name, geographical name, ornamental or non-distinctive geometrical figure. ADS Spirits replied, and after several hearings filed an additional reply listing 31 registered marks containing the word OFFER. On 30 October 2025, the Registrar refused the application, reasoning that OFFER is used in common parlance when seeking a discount and is therefore not unique. ADS Spirits appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, and the court decided the appeal on 21 July 2026.
Issues
-
- Whether the Registrar’s order, which did not engage with ADS Spirits’ replies, its list of 31 registered OFFER-formative marks or the judgments it cited, qualified as a valid reasoned order of a quasi-judicial authority.
- Whether “uniqueness” is a legally recognised test under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act for refusing registration.
- Whether OFFER is devoid of distinctive character in relation to alcoholic beverages in Class 33, judged on the spectrum of distinctiveness.
- Whether the court should direct registration or remit the application to the Registrar for fresh consideration.
ADS Spirits’ Arguments (Appellant)
-
- The refusal order is non-speaking, since it ignores both replies, the 31 registered third-party marks and the case law placed on record.
- The Registrar applied a wrong test, because Section 9(1)(a) requires only that a mark be capable of distinguishing goods and does not demand uniqueness or novelty.
- OFFER, though an ordinary English word, is arbitrary for alcoholic beverages and will be read as a brand on a liquor bottle.
- The Registrar had earlier registered marks such as OFFER SALE, offerME, Grab Offers and OFFERUP, and non-distinctiveness ordinarily cannot be found where no one else uses a similar mark.
- A common phrase that does not describe the goods can be registered, as the Division Bench held for ONE FOR ALL in Oswaal Books and Learnings Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2026 SCC OnLine Del 2362).
Registrar’s Arguments (Respondent)
-
- The order discloses adequate application of mind, and no law requires reasoning to run into several paragraphs.
- OFFER is an ordinary English word used in common parlance for discounts on goods and services, so it lacks the uniqueness needed for registration under Section 9(1)(a).
- Courts have denied exclusivity over generic or laudatory words such as KHILADI, ANANDA and PRIDE, the last in Pernod Ricard India v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701).
- Such words cannot be monopolised without proof of acquired secondary meaning, which ADS Spirits had not shown.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
A boilerplate objection and a silent refusal
The court observed that the objection in the examination report read like a pre-drafted template, since it listed surname, geographical name and geometrical figure without saying which category OFFER fell into. The court noted that this showed non-application of mind, and further observed that the final order dealt with none of the submissions, registered third-party marks or judgments ADS Spirits cited.
The court held that the Registrar, as a quasi-judicial authority, must consider the material before it and pass a speaking order, and that an order skipping the reply to an examination report could be quashed on this ground alone.
Distinctiveness is not uniqueness
The court stated that Section 9(1)(a) Trade Marks Act bars registration of marks devoid of distinctive character, and the provision itself explains the phrase as incapacity to distinguish the goods or services of one person from those of another. The court found no concept of uniqueness in the text and held that the Registrar had applied a wrong test.
The court opined that even a common English word can be distinctive of goods with which it has no connection. It reasoned that the inquiry is how far the imagination must be strained to link the mark to the goods, and where no link arises, as with ivory for soaps, the mark is arbitrary.
Measuring the mark against the goods and the spectrum
The court noted that distinctiveness cannot be tested in a vacuum and must be seen relative to the goods applied for, because a word may be descriptive for one category and distinctive for another. Relying on Disruptive Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (2022 SCC OnLine Del 2002), the court observed that arbitrary, fanciful and suggestive marks are inherently registrable, while descriptive marks need secondary meaning, so the Registrar must locate the mark on the spectrum before refusing it.
The court found that the Registrar never undertook this exercise for OFFER in relation to alcoholic beverages, and therefore the refusal under Section 9(1)(a) Trade Marks Act could not stand.
Offer is not a synonym for discount
The court further observed that the Registrar’s premise was itself inaccurate, since an offer is an invitation to transact, whereas a discount is a reduction in price, and the word is seldom used alone to announce a discount.
The court held that the decisions pressed by the Registrar did not assist, because KHILADI had been used in at least 40 films and shows, ANANDA was widely understood as a place of peace, and PRIDE was common in the alcoholic beverages trade. Nothing comparable was shown for OFFER.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court held that:
-
- The Registrar’s order dated 30 October 2025 refusing application no. 5514779 for OFFER in Class 33 was cryptic and unreasoned, and ignored the replies, the registered marks and the judgments relied on by ADS Spirits.
- Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act does not require a mark to be unique, and the Registrar applied a wrong test by refusing OFFER as lacking uniqueness.
- Distinctiveness must be assessed against the goods applied for, and the Registrar never examined whether OFFER is distinctive for alcoholic beverages on the spectrum of distinctiveness.
- An offer and a discount are not synonymous, and the decisions cited by the Registrar did not apply.
- The impugned order was set aside, and the Registrar must reconsider the application after hearing ADS Spirits, within four months.
- The court expressed no opinion on the final registrability of OFFER.
Case Citation: Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8/2026, High Court of Delhi (2026:DHC:5783), decided on 21 July 2026. Available at http://indiankanoon.org/doc/93942308/.
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels