Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.39 seconds)
Oswaal Books And Learnings Private ... vs The Registrar Of Trade Marks on 10 February, 2026 cites

Anil Verma vs R.K. Jewellers Sk Group & Ors. on 25 April, 2019

9. Without prejudice, it is contended that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under the proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act. The appellant disputes the finding of descriptiveness, submitting that "ONE FOR ALL", taken as a whole, does not describe the kind, nature, quality, purpose or characteristics of books and requires a mental pause to connect it with the goods. Reliance is placed on Anil Verma v. R.K. Jewellers5and Disruptive Health Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks.6 4 2023:DHC:3476 5 2019:DHC:2276 Signature Not Verified 6 2022:DHC:2545.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 7 - P M Singh - Full Document

Ticona Polymers, Inc. vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 28 February, 2023

13. The appellant submits that the impugned judgment violates the anti-dissection rule by dissecting the mark word-by-word instead of assessing it as a whole. Reliance is placed on Grey Matters Educations Trust (supra) and Ticona Polymers, Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks.12 7 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5669 8 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 25/2021 9 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2022 10 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7390 11 CMA (TM) No. 5 of 2024 Signature Not Verified 12 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1234 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR LPA 571/2025 Page 5 of 14 Signing Date:15.02.2026 20:58
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Pidilite Industries Limited vs Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products ... on 13 January, 2014

14. The appellant also submits that the refusal order is mechanical and violates Section 18(5) of the Act and Rule 36 of the Trade Marks Rules 2017. It is further contended that sub-brands remain independently registrable, and that the goodwill of the house mark extends to such sub-brands, relying on Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. Jubilant Agri & Consumer Products Ltd.13. The Appellant further submits that the mark was wrongly treated as a mere slogan, and that reliance on a literary phrase from The Three Musketeers is wholly irrelevant.
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 26 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

T.V. Venogopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr on 3 March, 2011

34.5 Re. plea that POWER FLEX is a descriptive mark, and cannot be injuncted - Section 35 34.5.1In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has also gone on to distinguish between descriptive marks and suggestive marks. Marks which are descriptive are not capable of being registered, in view of Section 9(1)(b)47 and cannot be injuncted because of Section 35; however, marks which, though not descriptive, are merely suggestive, may be registered, and can be injuncted. The position in law, in this regard, stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises.16 34.5.2The learned Single Judge has referred to various tests that have been evolved from time to time to decide whether a mark is distinctive or suggestive. In the facts of the present case, we do not deem any detailed discussion on that aspect to be necessary as, in our view, the word POWER FLEX is not even suggestive of footwear. The mark POWER FLEX does not bring, to mind, footwear. It cannot, therefore, be regarded as "(descriptive) of the character or quality" of the leather footwear of Leayan, within the meaning of Section 35.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 74 - D Bhandari - Full Document

A Dot Limited vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 11 April, 2023

12. It is contended that the learned Single Judge wrongly rejected the mark merely because it comprises common English words, despite precedent protecting such combinations. Reliance is placed on decisions of the learned Single Bench of this Court inA Dot Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks8, Kohler Co. v. Registrar of Trade Marks9, Grey Matters Educations Trust v. Examiner of Trade Marks10, and in the decision of the Madras High Court in Just Lime My Child Foundation v. Registrar of Trade Marks11.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Kohler Co vs Registrar Of Trade Marks on 18 January, 2023

12. It is contended that the learned Single Judge wrongly rejected the mark merely because it comprises common English words, despite precedent protecting such combinations. Reliance is placed on decisions of the learned Single Bench of this Court inA Dot Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks8, Kohler Co. v. Registrar of Trade Marks9, Grey Matters Educations Trust v. Examiner of Trade Marks10, and in the decision of the Madras High Court in Just Lime My Child Foundation v. Registrar of Trade Marks11.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document

Grey Matters Educational Trust vs Examiner Of Tgrade Marks on 2 December, 2022

13. The appellant submits that the impugned judgment violates the anti-dissection rule by dissecting the mark word-by-word instead of assessing it as a whole. Reliance is placed on Grey Matters Educations Trust (supra) and Ticona Polymers, Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks.12 7 2016 SCC OnLine Del 5669 8 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 25/2021 9 C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 34/2022 10 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7390 11 CMA (TM) No. 5 of 2024 Signature Not Verified 12 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1234 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR LPA 571/2025 Page 5 of 14 Signing Date:15.02.2026 20:58
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document
1