Trademark refusal | Intellepedia

OLIVE Trademark Case: Delhi High Court on Section 11 & Prior User Rights

Green-themed banner featuring an olive green T-shirt shown from the back on the left, a wooden board with green, black, and red olives and a small bottle of olive oil in the center, and an olive green T-shirt on the right printed with the phrase “OLIVE YOU” against a dark green background.

Delhi High Court refuses OLIVE trademark in Class 35, holding similarity with Class 25 marks and lack of proven prior user rights under Section 11.

A tipsy decision by the Trademark office? Court clarifies on geographical association of TAJPURIYA

A simple black and white illustration of two silhouetted figures standing together. One speech bubble says “SO?” while another larger bubble says “TAJPURIYA? That’s a tribe!” The image appears to represent a discussion or disagreement about whether the word TAJPURIYA refers to a tribal name.

In the case of M/S Ads Agro Industries Pvt Ltd vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, a liquor company applied to register the mark TAJPURIYA for alcoholic beverages. The Trade Marks Office first objected that the mark was geographical. However, in the final refusal order, it stated that TAJPURIYA was the name of an indigenous tribe associated with alcohol rituals. The High Court examined whether such a change in grounds was legally valid.

Trademark Fit Check: MISS MANGO Wears It Right, MANGO Can’t Block It

In the case of Mohamed Yusuf vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the appellant sought registration for a clothing brand using the device mark ‘MISS MANGO’. The Registrar rejected the application citing similarity to the word mark ‘MANGO’. The High Court found the refusal unsustainable, ruling that the marks were not confusingly similar and the generic nature of the word ‘MANGO’ raised questions about its own registrability.

Refusal without Effective Hearing? Not Valid: Delhi High Court on technical glitches in trademark hearings

In the case of Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks, the Delhi High Court set aside a refusal of a Class 16 application. In simple terms, the Court said that an order passed without an effective hearing, and without dealing with the documents on file, cannot stand.

Refusal of FACT Trademark for Air/Water Purification Products Set Aside

The Madras High Court reversed the refusal of the FACT trademark for air and water purification products, noting clear sectoral distinctions from existing marks. The decision underscores the importance of distinctiveness and product classification in trademark registration.

“Be mindful when exercising quasi judicial power, cryptic orders unacceptable” says Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court ruled that cryptic and uncommunicated orders by the Registrar of Trade Marks violate procedural fairness. The court mandated a fresh review of the trademark application, reinforcing the importance of reasoned decisions in quasi judicial processes.

Another Dis’connected’ order by the registry, set aside by the Court

The Calcutta High Court set aside a trademark refusal for Electronica India due to lack of reasoning and significant procedural lapses, instructing the registry to provide a fresh hearing. The order highlights the importance of fair hearing practices in Indian trademark law.

Citing gross delay and strong likelihood of confusion, court refuses CEAT’s appeal

The Delhi High Court dismissed CEAT’s appeal against the refusal of its FARMAX trademark, citing substantial delay and likelihood of confusion with prior marks. The court found the marks similar and the goods closely related, upholding the Registrar’s refusal.

Trademark refusal without notice and ‘40’ suffix similarity

Two recent Delhi High Court rulings clarify the consequences of unserved opposition notices and the assessment of trademark similarity based on numeric suffixes. The post analyses both decisions and discusses the procedural challenges in Indian trademark law.

Madras High Court allows Appeal under Section 91 with direction to amend word mark to label mark

The Madras High Court set aside the refusal of United Foods’ word mark YOYO, allowing amendment to a label mark under Section 91. The matter was remanded for reconsideration, reflecting a practical judicial approach in trademark appeals.