All May Use “One for All” — But None May Own It

Summary

In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (“Oswaal Books”) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks’ decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.

Background and Filing History

Oswaal Books, a well-known publisher of academic support materials for various Indian school boards and national entrance exams, applied for registration of the mark “ONE FOR ALL” in Class 16 for books. The application, dated October 20, 2020, claimed usage since August 20, 2020.

The trademark office issued an examination report raising objections under Section 9(1)(a) based on lack of distinctiveness. In response, Oswaal filed a user affidavit and written submissions with accompanying evidence to prove acquired distinctiveness. Following a hearing before the Senior Examiner, the mark was refused registration on December 14, 2023. Aggrieved, Oswald Books filed an appeal.

Arguments Advanced by the Appellant

Oswaal Books contended that:

• “ONE FOR ALL” was adopted as a slogan/tagline since 2020 and had been extensively used in both online and offline channels.
• They invested over ₹1.96 crores in marketing and claimed that the mark had become a source identifier.
• Substantial documentary evidence had been submitted to demonstrate usage and acquired distinctiveness.
• The Examiner failed to consider critical evidence, violating the principles of natural justice.
• The phrase, while made up of common words, had achieved distinctiveness in the educational publishing sector.
• Legal precedents supported the registrability of uniquely applied slogans using common terms, especially when arbitrary in context.

Registrar’s and Respondent’s Position

The Registrar, supported by government counsel, countered that:

• The mark was a banal and laudatory slogan lacking distinctiveness.
• Evidence submitted was insufficient to prove secondary meaning.
• Sales, promotional materials, and CA certificates primarily referred to “OSWAAL BOOKS,” not “ONE FOR ALL.”
• The mark was used consistently with a prefix or suffix, weakening claims of its independent distinctiveness.
• The phrase “ONE FOR ALL” directly described the target market of the books, making it descriptive.

The Registrar also pointed to the cultural ubiquity of the phrase—famously associated with “The Three Musketeers”—and reiterated settled law that common English phrases and descriptive expressions cannot be monopolized without proof of distinctiveness.

Findings on ‘One for All’

The Court undertook a methodical examination of both the legal standard and the evidence on record. The Court held that:

• “ONE FOR ALL” was plainly descriptive, suggesting that the books catered to all students and exams, thus directly conveying the nature and purpose of the product.
• The mark was rarely used in isolation and often appeared with “OSWAAL BOOKS,” weakening its claim as an independent source identifier.
• Promotional spend and sales data related broadly to Oswaal’s brand, with minimal specific reference to the applied mark. Invoices and advertisements did not demonstrate consistent or significant use of “ONE FOR ALL.”
• The mark failed to cross the threshold of acquired distinctiveness that requires recognition in the minds of consumers that links the phrase to the applicant’s goods.
• The Court distinguished the cases cited by the appellant and stated that marks using generic or laudatory language need compelling evidence to gain protection.

Quoting McCarthy on Trademarks, the Court emphasized that slogans must be more than puffery or promotional devices; they must function as indicators of trade origin.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that Oswaal Books did not satisfy the statutory or evidentiary burden to justify registration of the phrase “ONE FOR ALL.” It found the mark to be descriptive, commonly used, and lacking distinctiveness—either inherent or acquired. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation: Oswaal Books and Learnings Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 19/2024, (H.C. Delhi, May 28, 2025). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/163423158/