{"id":133019,"date":"2025-06-02T08:00:12","date_gmt":"2025-06-02T02:30:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=133019"},"modified":"2025-06-02T01:17:55","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T19:47:55","slug":"all-may-use-one-for-all-but-none-may-own-it","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/all-may-use-one-for-all-but-none-may-own-it\/","title":{"rendered":"All May Use \u201cOne for All\u201d \u2014 But None May Own It"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2>Background and Filing History<\/h2>\n<p>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 \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d in Class 16 for books. The application, dated October 20, 2020, claimed usage since August 20, 2020.<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2>Arguments Advanced by the Appellant<\/h2>\n<p>Oswaal Books contended that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d was adopted as a slogan\/tagline since 2020 and had been extensively used in both online and offline channels.<\/li>\n<li>They invested over \u20b91.96 crores in marketing and claimed that the mark had become a source identifier.<\/li>\n<li>Substantial documentary evidence had been submitted to demonstrate usage and acquired distinctiveness.<\/li>\n<li>The Examiner failed to consider critical evidence, violating the principles of natural justice.<\/li>\n<li>The phrase, while made up of common words, had achieved distinctiveness in the educational publishing sector.<\/li>\n<li>Legal precedents supported the registrability of uniquely applied slogans using common terms, especially when arbitrary in context.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Registrar\u2019s and Respondent\u2019s Position<\/h2>\n<p>The Registrar, supported by government counsel, countered that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The mark was a banal and laudatory slogan lacking distinctiveness.<\/li>\n<li>Evidence submitted was insufficient to prove secondary meaning.<\/li>\n<li>Sales, promotional materials, and CA certificates primarily referred to \u201cOSWAAL BOOKS,\u201d not \u201cONE FOR ALL.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>The mark was used consistently with a prefix or suffix, weakening claims of its independent distinctiveness.<\/li>\n<li>The phrase \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d directly described the target market of the books, making it descriptive.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Registrar also pointed to the cultural ubiquity of the phrase\u2014famously associated with \u201cThe Three Musketeers\u201d\u2014and reiterated settled law that common English phrases and descriptive expressions cannot be monopolized without proof of distinctiveness.<\/p>\n<h2>Findings on \u2018One for All\u2019<\/h2>\n<p>The Court undertook a methodical examination of both the legal standard and the evidence on record. The Court held that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d was plainly descriptive, suggesting that the books catered to all students and exams, thus directly conveying the nature and purpose of the product.<\/li>\n<li>The mark was rarely used in isolation and often appeared with \u201cOSWAAL BOOKS,\u201d weakening its claim as an independent source identifier.<\/li>\n<li>Promotional spend and sales data related broadly to Oswaal\u2019s brand, with minimal specific reference to the applied mark. Invoices and advertisements did not demonstrate consistent or significant use of \u201cONE FOR ALL.\u201d<\/li>\n<li>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\u2019s goods.<\/li>\n<li>The Court distinguished the cases cited by the appellant and stated that marks using generic or laudatory language need compelling evidence to gain protection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<h2>Conclusion<\/h2>\n<p>The Court concluded that Oswaal Books did not satisfy the statutory or evidentiary burden to justify registration of the phrase \u201cONE FOR ALL.\u201d It found the mark to be descriptive, commonly used, and lacking distinctiveness\u2014either inherent or acquired. The appeal was therefore dismissed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Citation: <\/strong>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: <a href=\"http:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/163423158\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">http:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/163423158\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In a recent decision, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal by Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited (\u201cOswaal Books\u201d) challenging the refusal of their trademark application for the phrase \u201cONE FOR ALL.\u201d The Court upheld the Registrar of Trade Marks\u2019 decision, and came to the conclusion that the applied mark was devoid of any inherent or acquired distinctiveness.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":133032,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":74,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,11],"tags":[1159,486,7222,7223,101],"class_list":["post-133019","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-acquired-distinctiveness","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-oswaal-books","tag-slogan-trademark","tag-trademark-law"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133019","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133019"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133019\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":133033,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133019\/revisions\/133033"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/133032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133019"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133019"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133019"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}