Introduction : The case revolves around the trademark registration battle for the mark 'TAJPURIYA' in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages, highlighting critical procedural safeguards in trademark examination and adjudication under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Delhi High Court's decision in this appeal underscores the imperative that the Registrar of Trade Marks must confine refusals to objections explicitly raised in the Examination Report, thereby upholding principles of natural justice and preventing arbitrary shifts in grounds for refusal. This ruling reinforces that applicants deserve a full and fair opportunity to address all objections, and any deviation renders the order unsustainable, especially when the mark is asserted to be arbitrary and devoid of direct descriptive or geographical linkage to the goods.
Factual Background :ADS Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., a rapidly expanding liquor conglomerate in India's alcohol beverage sector, is involved in manufacturing, marketing, trading, and selling liquor products. The company honestly and bona fide adopted the trademark 'TAJPURIYA' for alcoholic beverages and preparations for making such beverages, claiming the mark to be arbitrary in relation to the goods and inherently distinctive, with no natural or direct connection to alcohol or the industry.
Procedural Background : On 08.06.2021, the Appellant filed Trademark Application No. 4997781 in Class 33 on a 'proposed to be used' basis for the mark 'TAJPURIYA'. The Registrar issued an Examination Report dated 24.06.2021, raising an objection solely under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, on the ground that the mark constituted a geographical name and was thus incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another. The Appellant promptly filed a detailed reply dated 26.06.2021, asserting the mark's arbitrariness, inherent distinctiveness, absence of any geographical connection, and entitlement to registration even if hypothetically treated as having geographical origin, relying inter alia on the Gujarat High Court precedent in Sahkar Seeds Corporation v. Dharti Seeds, 2017 SCC OnLine Guj 2577. Following this, the Registrar issued a hearing notice, conducted a hearing on 03.01.2024, and passed the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 refusing registration under Section 9, but on an entirely new and extraneous ground—that 'Tajpuriya' refers to an indigenous tribe of Nepal (also residing in parts of India such as Bihar, West Bengal, Sikkim, and Darjeeling), where alcohol forms an essential part of religious rituals, rendering the mark devoid of distinctive character.
Reasoning and Decision of Court: The Delhi High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh, found substantial merit in the Appellant's challenge under Section 91 of the Act. The Court observed that the impugned order suffered from two fundamental defects. First, the refusal was predicated on a fresh ground (tribal name linked to ritualistic alcohol use) never raised in the Examination Report, thereby denying the Appellant any opportunity to contest or reply to it, which violated procedural requirements under the Act and breached principles of natural justice. Second, the original geographical name objection from the Examination Report was neither reiterated nor addressed in the impugned order, and the Registrar failed to engage with the detailed submissions in the Appellant's reply regarding the mark's arbitrariness, inherent distinctiveness, and high degree of protection for arbitrary marks (even those with alleged geographical connotations). The Court noted that shifting to an extraneous ground without prior notice or consideration of the reply rendered the order wholly illegal and unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Registrar for re-examination of the application from the hearing stage, mandating due consideration of the reply to the Examination Report, grant of a fresh hearing opportunity to the Appellant, and completion of the entire process within two months from the date of the judgment.
Point of Law Settled in the Case :The judgment firmly establishes that the Registrar of Trade Marks is bound to restrict refusal grounds to those explicitly articulated in the Examination Report issued under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Introducing new or extraneous grounds in the final order without affording the applicant prior notice and an opportunity to respond constitutes a serious procedural irregularity, infringing natural justice principles and statutory procedure. Furthermore, where specific objections are raised and a detailed reply is filed addressing distinctiveness, arbitrariness, or exceptions for arbitrary use, the Registrar is duty-bound to deal with and consider those submissions; failure to do so, coupled with reliance on unheralded grounds, vitiates the refusal order. This ruling strengthens applicant protections in opposition and refusal proceedings by mandating transparency, consistency, and fairness throughout the examination and hearing stages.
Case Title: ADS Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Date of Order: 3rd February, 2026
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 33/2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1134
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles for the Article:
Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Refusal for 'TAJPURIYA': Procedural Fairness Prevails in Registrar's Examination
Arbitrary Marks and Natural Justice: Delhi HC Remands 'TAJPURIYA' Application, Bars Extraneous Refusal Grounds
No New Grounds Without Opportunity: Procedural Fairness Trademark Examination Landmark Delhi HC Ruling on Trademark Refusal Procedure
Suggested Tags: TrademarkLaw, DelhiHighCourt, IPLaw, TradeMarksAct1999, NaturalJustice, TrademarkRefusal, ArbitraryMarks, IPIndia, TrademarkRegistration, RegistrarOfTradeMarks, IndianIP, IPUpdate, TrademarkCaseLaw,
Headnote Delhi High Court holds that Registrar cannot refuse trademark registration on grounds not raised in Examination Report; impugned refusal for 'TAJPURIYA' set aside for violating natural justice and failing to address applicant's reply on arbitrariness and distinctiveness; matter remanded for fresh consideration within two months (2026:DHC:1134).
=====
ADS Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing and selling liquor products, adopted the arbitrary and inherently distinctive mark 'TAJPURIYA' for alcoholic beverages in Class 33 and filed Trademark Application No. 4997781 on 08.06.2021 on proposed-to-be-used basis. The Registrar raised objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 vide Examination Report dated 24.06.2021 treating it as a geographical name incapable of distinguishing goods; Appellant filed detailed reply dated 26.06.2021 asserting arbitrariness, inherent distinctiveness, lack of geographical connection and reliance on Gujarat HC precedent. After hearing on 03.01.2024, Registrar refused registration vide impugned order dated 29.01.2024 on new ground that 'Tajpuriya' is name of an indigenous tribe of Nepal (also in parts of India) where alcohol is essential in religious rituals, thus lacking distinctive character under Section 9. Appellant challenged this under Section 91 before Delhi High Court, which found the order unsustainable as the refusal relied on a fresh ground not raised in Examination Report (violating natural justice and procedure, denying Appellant opportunity to respond) and failed to address points in Appellant's reply on arbitrariness and protection even for arbitrary geographical-origin marks; accordingly, impugned order was set aside and matter remanded to Registrar for re-examination from hearing stage after considering reply, with fresh hearing and decision within two months.
Law settled: Registrar cannot refuse trademark registration on a ground not raised in the Examination Report, as it deprives applicant of opportunity to respond, violating principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. (Para 4, 8)
Law settled: Where Examination Report raises specific objection (e.g., geographical name under Section 9(1)(a)), Registrar must deal with applicant's detailed reply addressing distinctiveness/arbitrariness and cannot shift to extraneous or new grounds without opportunity; failure to consider reply renders order unsustainable. (Para 5, 8)
Law settled: Impugned refusal order must be confined to objections raised in Examination Report and cannot be sustained if it introduces new grounds or ignores applicant's submissions on inherent distinctiveness of arbitrary marks. (Para 8)
Case Title: M/s. ADS Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks Order Date: 3rd February, 2026 Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 33/2024 Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1134 Name of Court: High Court of Delhi Name of Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
No comments:
Post a Comment