{"id":391375,"date":"2026-07-24T18:00:52","date_gmt":"2026-07-24T12:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=391375"},"modified":"2026-07-24T18:18:21","modified_gmt":"2026-07-24T12:48:21","slug":"del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In an appeal filed under Section 91<\/a>, Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> (the Act) challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks’s order refusing to register the word mark “OFFER” in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages on the ground that the mark lacked distinctiveness, the Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh*, J.<\/span>, held that for determining registrability under Section 9(1)(a<\/span>)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>, the relevant enquiry is whether the applied mark possesses distinctive character capable of distinguishing one trader’s goods from those of others. The statute does not require a mark to be unique, and distinctiveness must always be assessed with reference to the goods or services for which registration is sought. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Registrar to reconsider appellant’s trade mark application afresh, in light of parameters of Section 9(1)(a<\/span>) and testing the distinctiveness of the mark “OFFER” in relation to the alcoholic beverages for which the registration was sought.<\/p>\n

Also Read: A Small Sydney Designer vs. One of the World’s Biggest Pop Stars: How Katie Taylor Beat Katy Perry in Trade Mark Dispute at Australia High Court<\/a><\/p>\n

Brief Facts<\/p>\n

The appellant, a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages, applied on 3 July 2022 for registration of the trademark “OFFER” in Class 33 on a proposed-to-be-used basis.<\/p>\n

The Trade Marks Registry issued an examination report raising an objection under Section 9(1)(a<\/span>), stating that the mark was a common surname, personal name, geographical name, ornamental expression, or a non-distinctive geometrical figure and therefore incapable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods.<\/p>\n

The appellant filed a detailed reply explaining that “OFFER” was an arbitrary and inherently distinctive mark in relation to alcoholic beverages, the word did not describe the goods and 31 trademarks containing the word “OFFER” had already been registered.<\/p>\n

Despite written submissions, additional replies, citations of judgments, and repeated hearings, the Registrar rejected the application by order dated 30 October 2025, holding that the word “OFFER” is commonly used while seeking discounts and lacked uniqueness. The appellant challenged the impugned order before the High Court.<\/p>\n

Also Read: Delhi HC: Prior declaration as “well-known trade mark” not mandatory to invoke Section 11(2); cancels “ZORA” trade mark for similarity with “ZARA”<\/a><\/p>\n

Issues for Determination<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Whether the Registrar correctly applied Section 9(1)(a<\/span>) while refusing registration of the trademark “OFFER”?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Whether the Registrar was justified in treating “uniqueness” as the governing test for determining registrability?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Whether the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind by ignoring the appellant’s submissions and relevant precedents?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Also Read: Delhi High Court issues notice in “SOCIAL HOUSE” Trade mark appeal; Refers long-running “SOCIAL” brand dispute to Mediation<\/a><\/p>\n

    Analysis<\/p>\n

    The Court found multiple legal infirmities in the impugned order. It observed that the initial objection itself appeared to be a standard pre-drafted format, simultaneously describing the mark as a surname, personal name, geographical name and geometrical figure without identifying which objection actually applied to the word “OFFER”. This itself indicated lack of application of mind.<\/p>\n

    The Court further noted that the Registrar failed to consider the appellant’s replies, additional written submissions, cited judgments, and the list of previously registered marks containing the word “OFFER”. It reiterated that the Registrar, being a quasi-judicial authority, must pass reasoned and speaking orders after considering all relevant submissions and documents. Failure to do so defeats the very purpose of inviting responses to examination reports.<\/p>\n

    The Court held that the Registrar fundamentally misconstrued Section 9(1)(a<\/span>)<\/a> of the Act<\/a>. Section 9(1)(a<\/span>) states that registration shall be refused where the trade mark is “devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another person”<\/span>. However, the Registrar rejected the application because the mark lacked “uniqueness”. The Court categorically observed that the concept of “uniqueness” finds no place in Section 9(1)(a<\/span>) and therefore, the Registrar applied an incorrect legal standard.<\/p>\n

    The Court reiterated that the trade marks are classified in four categories: 1) arbitrary, fanciful and invented marks; 2) suggestive marks; 3) descriptive marks; and 4) generic marks. Whether a mark is distinctive cannot be determined in isolation. A word may be descriptive for one class of goods but entirely arbitrary for another. The Court asserted that the Registrar failed to examine whether the word “OFFER”, when used for alcoholic beverages, functions as a source identifier.<\/p>\n

    The Court accepted that although “OFFER” is an ordinary English word, it does not directly describe alcoholic beverages. Its relationship with liquor products is neither immediate nor obvious. However, the Court also noted that the Registrar never examined whether the mark functioned as a source identifier in relation to Class 33 goods and therefore failed to undertake the statutory enquiry mandated by Section 9(1)(a<\/span>).<\/p>\n

    The Court further noted that Registrar’s finding that “OFFER” indicates a discount and hence not unique not totally correct. It clarified that “offer and discount are not synonymous”. An offer is merely a proposal or invitation to transact, whereas a discount signifies a reduction in price. Products may be offered for sale without any discount, and in commercial practice the word “offer” is generally accompanied by qualifiers such as “special”, “limited” or “exclusive”. Consequently, the Registrar’s reasoning was legally and factually unsustainable.<\/p>\n

    The Court distinguished the precedents relied upon by the Registrar concerning marks such as KHILADI, ANANDA, and PRIDE, noting that those expressions had acquired recognised meanings within their respective trades or were already in widespread commercial use. No comparable finding existed regarding the word “OFFER” in relation to alcoholic beverages.<\/p>\n

    Also Read: Delhi HC Holds “GLASS SKIN” Descriptive; Directs Removal of Trade Mark Registration in Class 3<\/a><\/p>\n

    Decision<\/p>\n

    The Court quashed the order dated 30 October 2025 and directed the Registrar to reconsider appellant’s trade marks registration application afresh, applying the correct legal test under Section 9(1)(a) and take a fresh decision within 4 months. It further directed the Registrar to consideration of all replies, documents and submissions after granting the appellant an opportunity of hearing. It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of registrability of the mark itself.<\/p>\n

    Also Read: Trade Mark in the Algorithms: How Brand and Market Confusion Interact Online<\/a><\/p>\n

    [ADS Spirits (P) Ltd.<\/span> v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/span>, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 8\/2026, decided on 21-7-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

    *Judgment Authored by Justice Jyoti Singh<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

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

    For the Appellant:<\/span> Mr. Ankit Sahni, Ms. Kritika Sahni, Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia, Mr. Mohit Maru and Ms. Aparna Sharma, Advs.<\/p>\n

    For the Respondent:<\/span> Mr. Gaurav Barathi, SPC with Mr. Vikrant Malwal, Government Pleader and Mr. Chirantan Priyadarshan, Advs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The Court held that for the purpose of Section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act, 1999, the statutory inquiry is whether the applied mark possesses distinctive character and is capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of others. The Act does not prescribe uniqueness as a condition for registration.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67514,"featured_media":391393,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[110712,110711,2543,31180,71166,31666,110710,29672,2616,59577,45758],"class_list":["post-391375","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-alcoholic-beverages","tag-class-33-trademark","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-distinctive-character","tag-justice-jyoti-singh","tag-non-application-of-mind","tag-section-91a","tag-speaking-order","tag-Trade_Mark","tag-trade-mark-act","tag-trademark-registration"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC: Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Section 9(1)(a) Trade Mark Act | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds that distinctiveness, not uniqueness, governs registrability under section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act and directs registrar to reconsider "OFFER" mark registration application\" \/>\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\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court holds that distinctiveness, not uniqueness, governs registrability under section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act and directs registrar to reconsider "OFFER" mark registration application\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-07-24T12:30:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-24T12:48:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Ritu\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"headline\":\"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-24T12:30:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-24T12:48:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1100,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"Alcoholic Beverages\",\"Class 33 Trademark\",\"Delhi High Court\",\"Distinctive character\",\"Justice Jyoti Singh\",\"Non- Application of mind\",\"Section 9(1)(a)\",\"speaking order\",\"Trade Mark\",\"Trade Mark act\",\"Trademark Registration\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC: Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Section 9(1)(a) Trade Mark Act | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-24T12:30:52+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-24T12:48:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court holds that distinctiveness, not uniqueness, governs registrability under section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act and directs registrar to reconsider \\\"OFFER\\\" mark registration application\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 9(1)(a) trademark distinctiveness\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/24\\\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application\"}]},{\"@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\\\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9\",\"name\":\"Ritu\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Ritu\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_7\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC: Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Section 9(1)(a) Trade Mark Act | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court holds that distinctiveness, not uniqueness, governs registrability under section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act and directs registrar to reconsider \"OFFER\" mark registration application","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\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application","og_description":"Delhi High Court holds that distinctiveness, not uniqueness, governs registrability under section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act and directs registrar to reconsider \"OFFER\" mark registration application","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-24T12:30:52+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-24T12:48:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Ritu","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Ritu","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/"},"author":{"name":"Ritu","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"headline":"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application","datePublished":"2026-07-24T12:30:52+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-24T12:48:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/"},"wordCount":1100,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp","keywords":["Alcoholic Beverages","Class 33 Trademark","Delhi High Court","Distinctive character","Justice Jyoti Singh","Non- Application of mind","Section 9(1)(a)","speaking order","Trade Mark","Trade Mark act","Trademark Registration"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/","name":"Del HC: Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Section 9(1)(a) Trade Mark Act | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-24T12:30:52+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-24T12:48:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9"},"description":"Delhi High Court holds that distinctiveness, not uniqueness, governs registrability under section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act and directs registrar to reconsider \"OFFER\" mark registration application","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 9(1)(a) trademark distinctiveness"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/24\/del-hc-distinctiveness-governs-registrability-section-9-1-a-trade-marks-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Governs Registrability Under Section 9(1)(a); Delhi HC Directs Registrar to Reconsider \u201cOFFER\u201d Mark Registration Application"}]},{"@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\/392f265bae2f48f0f0d02b8e0e9015b9","name":"Ritu","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/c47318594774c1fe55e3e8c85dcd1909276373d9bf11730032fc1a7d05d56a47?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Ritu"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_7\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-91a-trademark-distinctiveness.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391375","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\/67514"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=391375"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391375\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":391397,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/391375\/revisions\/391397"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/391393"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=391375"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=391375"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=391375"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}