Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The parties have been directed to appear before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre on 17 July 2026, while the appeal has been listed before the Division Bench on 21 August 2026 to report the outcome of the mediation proceedings.
The Delhi High Court while allowing a rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics (P) Ltd held that the mark “GLASS SKIN” is descriptive of skincare products and directed cancellation of its trade mark registration, finding it hit by Section 9(1)(b), Trade Marks Act, 1999.
“An applicant cannot be permitted to reap the benefit of an illegality, as any such registration would be nothing but the fruits of a poisonous tree.”
The Court opined that a party seeking interim injunction in a passing-off action must produce concrete evidence of use, goodwill, and business turnover.
The Court issued a general direction to the Registrar of Trademarks to decide all pending trademark registration applications as early as possible.
The ruling sets a precedent for protecting established brands and upholding the integrity of trademark registration processes. The cancellation of the infringing trademark serves as a deterrent to potential trademark violators, emphasizing the importance of respecting intellectual property rights in commercial activities.
“once it is concluded that the earlier trade mark is a well-known trade mark, the registration of an identical or similar trade mark is not permitted if the use of the later mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or reputation of the earlier trade mark”
Delhi High Court: Stating that mere writing of a letter of representation cannot furnish an adequate explanation for the delay, Jyoti Singh,
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Nitin Jamdar and C.V Bhadang, JJ., upheld the order of the District Court refusing to