{"id":350513,"date":"2025-06-13T09:00:23","date_gmt":"2025-06-13T03:30:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=350513"},"modified":"2025-06-17T12:27:40","modified_gmt":"2025-06-17T06:57:40","slug":"delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL’s trademark appeal for ‘ONE FOR ALL’ mark as descriptive and non-distinctive"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court<\/span>: An appeal was filed under Section 91<\/a> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> and Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017<\/a> seeking to set aside the order dated 14-12-2023 passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, whereby, the appellant’s Trade Mark Application in Class 16, for the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d, in respect of goods, i.e., books, that it publishes and sells, was rejected. Mini Pushkarna, J., held that in the absence of inherent distinctiveness, and considering the appellant’s failure to establish secondary meaning, the impugned order of refusal is well-founded in law, and merits no interference.<\/p>\n

The appellant, Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited, has been engaged in the business of publishing help books for all leading boards such as Central Board of Secondary Education (\u201cCBSE\u201d), Indian School Certificate (\u201cISC\u201d), Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (\u201cICSE\u201d), and the Karnataka Board, as well as national competitive exams such as the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE \u2014 Mains & Advanced), National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (\u201cNEET\u201d), Railway Recruitment Boards Non-Technical Popular Categories exam (\u201cRRB-NTPC\u201d), Common Admission Test (\u201cCAT\u201d), and Common Law Admission Test (\u201cCLAT\u201d). The appellant owns registrations for trademarks, including, and OSWAAL BOOKS.<\/p>\n

The appellant had filed an application to register the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d in Class 16 for printed books and educational materials. The Trade Marks Registry objected to the registration primarily on the ground that the mark was a common English phrase devoid of distinctive character, and merely descriptive of the goods. The appellant filed a detailed reply to the Examination Report, submitting that the mark had been in use since 2020, had acquired distinctiveness and goodwill, and was exclusively associated with its educational books catering to various boards and competitive exams. It emphasized that \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d was a unique source identifier linked to Oswaal Books and had become synonymous with its quality and academic reach.<\/p>\n

The Court, however, after a thorough examination of the pleadings, evidence, and statutory framework, declined to accept the appellant\u2019s contentions and noted that the documents submitted by the appellant failed to establish that the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d had acquired any independent recognition in the trade or amongst consumers. Exhibit A was merely the reply to the Examination Report. Exhibit B was a screenshot from the appellant\u2019s website, but it did not reference the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL.\u201d Exhibit C contained only a single printing invoice, and only one out of five books mentioned the mark. Exhibit D referred to YouTube videos and third-party reviews, but the earliest video post-dated the claimed user date of 2020, thereby undermining the claim of longstanding usage.<\/p>\n

The Court further found that the mark was never used in isolation. Exhibits E showed that the term was always conjoined with \u201cOswaal Books\u201d or other phrases, rather than standing alone as a source identifier. This, the Court noted, was fatal to the claim of acquired distinctiveness under the proviso to Section 9(1). It reiterated that for any mark to be registrable under the proviso, it must be capable of distinguishing the goods of one person from those of another, and merely extensive use is insufficient unless it leads to a secondary meaning in consumer perception.<\/p>\n

The Court was also influenced by the fact that the appellant\u2019s own marketing described the series as one catering to all students across all boards and competitive examinations, which reinforced the descriptive nature of the phrase \u201cONE FOR ALL.\u201d The Court held that the term directly conveyed the utility of the goods and was not suggestive in context. The Court emphasized that slogans and common expressions face a significantly higher threshold to qualify for registration. The mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d lacked the necessary attributes and could not be monopolized under trademark law. The Court highlighted that expressions like \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d or \u201cALL IN ONE,\u201d when used in connection with books, suggest universal applicability and are thus descriptive by nature.<\/p>\n

Further, the Court was not persuaded by the precedents cited by the appellant, noting that those decisions dealt with inherently distinctive or suggestive marks that did not describe features of the products or services. Here, in contrast, the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d was plainly descriptive, suggesting a one-stop solution across diverse academic needs and boards.<\/p>\n

The Court remarked that \u201cthe phrase \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d is a common, laudatory slogan, clearly suggestive of the appellant’s intention to project its books as a universal solution for various academic needs. The appellant’s own submission that its’ publications cater to multiple school boards and national level competitive examinations, when juxtaposed with the applied mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d, confirms that the mark functions descriptively conveying that the appellant’s books are suitable for everyone, across all exams and boards. Such use of the phrase directly describes the intended utility of the goods, and hence, is not arbitrary in the context of the appellant’s business.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proving acquired distinctiveness. The sales data, promotional expenditure, and general assertions of market success, without direct evidence linking such recognition exclusively to the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL,\u201d were held to be inadequate. The Court stated that most of the evidence related to \u201cOswaal Books\u201d as a brand, and not to the applied mark specifically. Additionally, the isolated and non-prominent use of the mark, sometimes only as part of slogans, further weakened the claim for registration.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, finding no legal infirmity in the order of refusal passed by the Trade Marks Registry, the Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, holding that the mark \u201cONE FOR ALL\u201d was not entitled to registration either on the basis of inherent distinctiveness or on account of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning.<\/p>\n

[Oswal Books and Learnings Pvt Ltd v. Registrar of Trademark, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4113<\/a>, decided on 28-05-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Sonal Chhablani, Advocates for appellant<\/p>\n

Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC with Mr. Amlaan Kumar and Mr. Uwayak Aren, Advocates for respondent<\/p>\n

Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 \u00a0 HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"trade<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Mere reliance on sales figures, promotional expenditure, or broad assertions of popularity, without cogent documentary substantiation connecting such use exclusively to the mark “ONE FOR ALL”, is insufficient.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67516,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[74503,72373,83422,79969,5881,83420,83421,83423,74589,76091],"class_list":["post-350513","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-brandprotection","tag-delhihighcourt","tag-descriptivemark","tag-iplitigation","tag-ipr","tag-oneforallmark","tag-oswalbooks","tag-trademarkappeal","tag-trademarklaw","tag-trademarksact1999"],"yoast_head":"\nDHC dismiss OSWAL's Trademark Appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' as Descriptive| SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court dismissed OSWAL's appeal for registration of the trademark 'ONE FOR ALL', holding it to be descriptive\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL's trademark appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' mark as descriptive and non-distinctive\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court dismissed OSWAL's appeal for registration of the trademark 'ONE FOR ALL', holding it to be descriptive and lacking distinctiveness under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-13T03:30:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-06-17T06:57:40+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL's trademark appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' mark as descriptive and non-distinctive\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arunima\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"DHC dismiss OSWAL's Trademark Appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' as Descriptive| SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-06-13T03:30:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-06-17T06:57:40+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court dismissed OSWAL's appeal for registration of the trademark 'ONE FOR ALL', holding it to be descriptive\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL’s trademark appeal for ‘ONE FOR ALL’ mark as descriptive and non-distinctive\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb\",\"name\":\"Arunima\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arunima\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"DHC dismiss OSWAL's Trademark Appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' as Descriptive| SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court dismissed OSWAL's appeal for registration of the trademark 'ONE FOR ALL', holding it to be descriptive","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL's trademark appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' mark as descriptive and non-distinctive","og_description":"Delhi High Court dismissed OSWAL's appeal for registration of the trademark 'ONE FOR ALL', holding it to be descriptive and lacking distinctiveness under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-06-13T03:30:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-06-17T06:57:40+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Arunima","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL's trademark appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' mark as descriptive and non-distinctive","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arunima","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/","name":"DHC dismiss OSWAL's Trademark Appeal for 'ONE FOR ALL' as Descriptive| SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-06-13T03:30:23+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-17T06:57:40+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb"},"description":"Delhi High Court dismissed OSWAL's appeal for registration of the trademark 'ONE FOR ALL', holding it to be descriptive","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/13\/delhi-high-court-rejects-oswal-one-for-all-trademark-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delhi High Court rejects OSWAL’s trademark appeal for ‘ONE FOR ALL’ mark as descriptive and non-distinctive"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/12b21fd8f65a572f39f27151710e16cb","name":"Arunima","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/8375ad8b08b1cbd970f4484d3218d81f3222a0ee3e463210f657780cb13e9569?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arunima"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-editor_9\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":300038,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/25\/delhi-hc-datapaq-as-a-whole-is-a-registered-trade-mark-no-exclusivity-is-vested-in-data-or-paq-separately\/","url_meta":{"origin":350513,"position":0},"title":"‘DATAPAQ’ as a whole is a registered trade mark, no exclusivity is vested in ‘DATA’ or ‘PAQ’ separately: Delhi High Court","author":"Editor","date":"August 25, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe appellant's mark \u2018DATAPAQ' has been registered in a large number of countries and the appellant has a number of marks ending with \u2018PAQ '. Thus, the mark is consistent with the series of marks being used by the appellant.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":349199,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/05\/30\/even-momentary-confusion-in-customers-mind-sufficient-to-establish-trade-mark-infringement-dhc\/","url_meta":{"origin":350513,"position":1},"title":"Duration of confusion in customer\u2019s mind not material, even momentary confusion sufficient to establish trade mark infringement: Delhi HC","author":"Arushi","date":"May 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe fact that the customer may on a closer examination of products and enquiries find that the impugned trade marks are not associated with the appellant\u2019s trade marks would not take away from the fact that the impugned marks bear a similarity with the appellants trade mark, which led to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312231,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/25\/dhc-upholds-registration-of-mark-premier-league-in-favour-of-football-association-premier-league-ltd-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350513,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court upholds registration of mark \u2018Premier League\u2019 in favour of Football Association Premier League Ltd.","author":"Simranjeet","date":"January 25, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c\u2018PREMIER\u2019 as used in appellant\u2019s mark is of a completely different font and style and has a small flower device on top of the word. Thus, concluded that there is no deceptive similarity on a bare perusal of the marks.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":284203,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/17\/kfc-cannot-have-exclusive-right-in-the-word-chicken-delhi-high-court-directs-trade-mark-registry-to-consider-application-for-advertisement-of-mark-chicken-zinger-in-class-29\/","url_meta":{"origin":350513,"position":3},"title":"KFC cannot have exclusive right in the word \u201cCHICKEN\u201d; Delhi High Court directs Trade Mark Registry to instead consider application for advertisement of the mark \u201cCHICKEN ZINGER\u201d in Class 29","author":"Editor","date":"February 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Delhi High Court held that KFC cannot have any exclusive right in the word \u201cCHICKEN\u201d, but the Court directed the Trade Mark Registry to proceed for advertisement of application for the mark \u201cCHICKEN ZINGER\u201d in Class 29.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":339537,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/22\/bharat-gate-deceptively-similar-to-india-gate-delhi-high-court-restores-injunction-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350513,"position":4},"title":"BHARAT GATE mark is deceptively similar to INDIA GATE; Delhi High Court restores injunction","author":"Arunima","date":"January 22, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The marks INDIA GATE and BHARAT GATE convey the same meaning and the difference in trade dress between the marks as visually depicted on the packages of the appellant\u2019s and respondent\u2019s products would not mitigate the confusion created by the infringement.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":292828,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/22\/words-abu-dhabi-global-market-used-in-device-mark-are-distinctive-in-nature-delhi-high-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":350513,"position":5},"title":"Words \u2018Abu Dhabi Global Market\u2019 used in a device mark are distinctive in nature: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"May 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"So long as others do not use the mark, or any similar mark, the Delhi High Court opined that a finding of non-distinctiveness can ordinarily not be returned as, howsoever innocuous a mark may appear to be, if it is used only by one person, it would, in plain etymological\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350513","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=350513"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/350513\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=350513"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=350513"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=350513"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}