Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Section 9 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 2 in The Trade And Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Patents Act, 1970
Mohd. Rafiq Mohd. Shafiq vs Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., Modinagar on 25 August, 1970
25. A finding of lack of distinctiveness must be preceded, in view
of Section 9(1)(a), by a finding that the mark in question is incapable
of distinguishing the goods or services, in respect of which it is
registered, from goods or services of another. One may envisage, for
example, marks which consist solely of common English words with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMLA
RAWAT C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 10/2023 Page 7 of 12
Signing Date:19.05.2023
14:34:06
Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:3476
no distinctive character, as falling within this category (though even
such marks would be entitled to registration if the proviso to Section
9(1) applies to them). Otherwise, quite frankly, capability to act as a
marker to distinguish the goods and services of one from another
being the sole criterion which is, statutorily, to be taken into
consideration while assessing "distinctiveness", it is difficult to
conceive of any mark, which is not in common use by others, as being
found to lack in distinctiveness. Albeit in the context of Section 9(3)2
of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, this Court, in Mohd
Rafiq v. Modi Sugar Mills3, held that "the most imperative requisite
of the word „distinctive‟ when used in relation to the goods in respect
of which a trade mark is registered, is that the trade mark should be
adopted to distinguish the goods of the proprietor from the goods of
the other persons".