Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.48 seconds)

Kapil Goyal vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 9 January, 2026

8. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent erroneously demanded proof of 'acquired distinctiveness' and 'secondary meaning' for the Appellant's application for the registration of the Appellant's Mark even when it was explicitly filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis, which is a paradoxical requirement. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon this Court's decision in Abu Dhabi Global Market (supra) to further submit that for an application filed on a proposed-to-be- used basis, evidence of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning cannot be demanded as the statutory recognition of proposed-to-be-used applications under Section 18(1) of the Act would be rendered meaningless if the evidence of market use is required.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1