IP Case Law › Trade Marks › ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Relevant Acts and provisions
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Provisions considered: Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Brief facts
The Appellant, incorporated in 2010 and part of a large liquor conglomerate, filed Trade Mark Application No. 5514779 on 03.07.2022 seeking registration of the mark OFFER in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages (except beers) and alcoholic preparations for making beverages, on a proposed-to-be-used basis. The Registrar issued an Examination Report dated 18.11.2022 objecting under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, describing the mark in a standard pre-drafted format as a common surname, personal name, geographical name, ornamental mark or non-distinctive geometrical figure. Despite the Appellant's reply and additional reply citing case law and a list of 31 registered marks incorporating the word OFFER with prefixes or suffixes, the Registrar passed the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 refusing registration on the sole ground that the word OFFER is commonly used when demanding a discount and is devoid of uniqueness. The Appellant filed a statutory appeal challenging the order as illegal, perverse, non-speaking and reflecting non-application of mind.
Issues before the Court
- Did the Registrar apply the correct legal test under Section 9(1)(a) while refusing to register the trade mark, or did it wrongly reject the mark for not being unique?
- Is the word OFFER incapable of identifying the Appellant's alcoholic beverages as coming from one particular company, or can it still function as a distinctive brand name in that context?
- Did the Registrar's order properly consider the Appellant's submissions, evidence and cited case law, or was it a non-speaking, unreasoned order?
Court's findings
The Appellant argued the rejection was a generic checklist without a clear basis and that the Registrar ignored its evidence, relying on Abu Dhabi Global Market v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks. The Respondent defended the rejection relying on Venus Worldwide Entertainment v. Popular Entertainment Network, IHHR Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Bestech India Pvt. Ltd., and Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra. The Court rejected these comparisons, clarifying that 'offer' is not synonymous with 'discount' and is rarely used alone to mean one, and cited Mohd. Rafiq & Others v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., which allowed SUN as a trade mark for lanterns.
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated 30.10.2025, remanding the matter to the Registrar for fresh consideration of the application within four months after granting a hearing to the Appellant, with the Court expressing no opinion on the merits.
Key legal principle / ratio
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not require the mark to be unique or novel. Further, being a quasi-judicial authority, the Registrar is obliged to consider all material, submissions and precedents placed on record and to pass a reasoned, speaking order; failure to do so independently vitiates the order.
Cases cited
- Abu Dhabi Global Market v. Registrar of Trade Marks
- Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks
- Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra
- Mohd. Rafiq & Others v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd.
Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.
Keywords
Absolute Grounds for Refusal Arbitrary Mark Distinctiveness Non-speaking Order Remand Section 9(1)(a)
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
Amrit Singh Mehta trading as Mehta Cosmetics v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Where a trade mark is registered after its normal renewal date, the proprietor is entitled to a six-month period from the actual date of registration to seek renewal. Further, a trade mark cannot be removed for non-renewal without…
Form O-2Form O-3Registration CertificateRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksArun Kumar Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Issuance of notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mandatory pre-condition for removal of a trade mark from the Register on account of non-renewal. Mere expiry of registration or failure to file a…
Form O-3Mandatory NoticeRegistered ProprietorRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksAshiana Ispat Limited v. Kamdhenu Limited & Ors.
A mere contractual promise to let someone adopt and use a mark is not the same as transferring ownership, where the contract makes ownership conditional on registration. Non-use of a mark for decades defeats a claim to common-law …
AssignmentDiscretionary OrderInterlocutory InjunctionLicence