Summary
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court allowed Capital Ventures Pvt. Ltd. to register “Parliament” trademarks, holding that the term functions as a common noun, not exclusively referencing the Indian Parliament. The Court distinguished statutory prohibitions targeting specific institutional names from generic terms, providing key clarity on trademark restrictions.
In a recent ruling that clarifies the scope of prohibited emblems and names under trademark law, the Delhi High Court allowed appeals by Capital Ventures Private Limited challenging the refusal of their “Parliament” trademark applications. The Court distinguished between the prohibition on using “name of the Parliament” versus the common noun “Parliament,” holding that the latter does not fall within the ambit of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
Background and Filing History
Capital Ventures Private Limited, engaged in trading and retailing fast-moving consumer goods and food items, had adopted various “Parliament” marks since 2013. The company filed multiple trademark applications across different classes:
-
- Device of Parliament Basmati Rice – Application No. 2736355 (Class 30) – filed on “proposed to be used” basis.
- Device of Parliament – Application No. 2511784 (Class 29) – with user claim since February 19, 2013.
- Device of Parliament – Application No. 2736356 (Class 30) – filed on “proposed to be used” basis.
- Device of Parliament – Application No. 2511787 (Class 35) – with user claim since February 19, 2013.
The Registrar of Trade Marks refused all applications between August 2018 and January 2020, primarily citing violations of Section 9(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with the Emblems and Names Act. The matter reached the Delhi High Court following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board pursuant to the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.
Arguments by the Appellant
- Existing Registrations: The Appellant had already obtained various registrations for “Parliament” marks in India and internationally across multiple jurisdictions including Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Canada, South Africa, USA, Mauritius, and Malaysia.
- Third-Party Precedents: Numerous subsisting registrations existed for “Parliament” and Parliament-formative marks in various classes, granted to third parties by the same Registrar.
- Linguistic Analysis: The word “Parliament” serves as a common noun describing legislative bodies globally, not exclusively referencing the Indian Parliament. The Hindi constitutional text uses “Sansad” when referring to India’s Parliament, reinforcing this distinction.
- Scope of Application: The Appellant was not seeking registration for “Indian Parliament” or “Parliament of India” but merely the common noun “Parliament.”
- Statutory Interpretation: No specific provision in the Emblems and Names Act prohibits registration of the standalone word “Parliament.”
Registrar’s Position
The Registrar, supported by government counsel, maintained that:
- Section 9(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, read with Entry 17 of the Schedule to the Emblems and Names Act, prohibited registration of “Parliament” or marks having “Parliament” as the dominant element.
- Article 79 of the Constitution consistently uses “Parliament” alone to refer to India’s legislative body.
- Common parlance associates “Parliament” with the Union of India’s legislature.
- Earlier registrations granted in error cannot create an estoppel against statutory provisions.
Court’s Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous examination of the statutory framework, focusing particularly on Entry 17 of the Schedule to the Emblems and Names Act, which prohibits “the name of the Parliament or the Legislature of any State.”
Textual Interpretation: The Court noted that the prohibition applies to the “name of the Parliament” rather than the word “Parliament” itself. This distinction was reinforced by examining other Schedule entries that specifically name prohibited terms like “Gandhi,” “Nehru,” “Shivaji,” and “Interpol.”
Constitutional Analysis: While the Registrar cited Article 79 of the Constitution, the Court observed that it refers to constitution of “a Parliament” for the Union, not establishing “Parliament” as an exclusive identifier for India’s legislature.
Linguistic Evidence: The Court found persuasive the Appellant’s argument that the Hindi text of both the Constitution and the Emblems and Names Act uses “Sansad” when referring to India’s Parliament, suggesting “Parliament” functions as a common noun rather than a specific name.
International Context: The judgment acknowledged that “Parliament” describes legislative bodies across numerous countries, making it inherently generic rather than uniquely Indian.
Administrative Inconsistency: The Court highlighted the Registrar’s failure to address why similar marks continued to be registered during the pendency of these appeals, despite claiming statutory violations.
Order and Conclusion
The Court concluded that use and registration of “Parliament” and Parliament-formative marks do not violate the Emblems and Names Act and consequently do not fall foul of Section 9(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act. The appeals were allowed, with directions for the Registrar to proceed with the applications in accordance with statutory provisions.
This decision reinforces the principle that trademark law must distinguish between prohibited specific names and common nouns that happen to relate to governmental institutions. The ruling provides clarity for businesses using parliamentary or legislative terminology in their branding, while maintaining appropriate protection for actual institutional names and emblems.
The judgment also demonstrates the importance of administrative consistency in trademark examination, particularly when existing registrations create reasonable expectations for similarly situated applicants.
Citation: Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 5/2022 & connected matters (H.C. Delhi, April 29, 2025); https://indiankanoon.org/doc/52072090/.
Article and Accessibility Reviewed by: Ms. Benita Alphonsa Basil
