Kleo Consumer Brands Vs. Jeevan Kumar

Appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 Settles the Path for Advertisement in Exceptional Circumstances

Case Title : Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited Vs. Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr. Date of Judgment: 03-07-2026 Case No.: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 2025 Neutral Citation : 2026:BHC:902 Court Name : High Court of Judicature at Bombay Name of Hon'ble Judge: Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.

Factual and Procedural Background The Petitioner filed an application for the registration of the word mark "ANAAR" under Class 25. The Senior Examiner of Trade Marks issued an examination report raising objections under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing a prior identical or similar registration (Application No. 3108965) for similar goods which created a likelihood of confusion. Despite three concurrent applications by the Petitioner for "ANAAR" device marks being allowed, the Senior Examiner rejected the word mark application outright without causing it to be advertised. Aggrieved by this refusal order dated September 3, 2024, the Petitioner filed a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act before the Bombay High Court. During the pendency of these proceedings, the Petitioner also initiated rectification proceedings against the cited conflicting mark.

Dispute before Court The primary dispute before the Court was whether the Registrar of Trade Marks was justified in completely refusing the registration of the word mark "ANAAR" under Section 11(1) without advertising the application to test the credibility of the confusion market apprehensions, especially when concurrent device marks for the same name were allowed and rectification proceedings had been initiated against the cited mark.

Reasoning of Judge The Court observed that while the Registrar had refused the word mark due to similarity with a prior footwear registration, the absolute rejection without advertisement was premature under the specific facts. The Judge highlighted the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which gives the Registrar discretion to advertise an application before acceptance if it falls under Section 9(1) or Section 11(1), or due to exceptional circumstances. The Court emphasized that advertising the application would serve as an effective mechanism to ascertain whether the commercial apprehensions of confusion are genuinely credible, particularly since the registrant of the cited mark failed to even file a counterstatement in the parallel rectification proceedings.

Decision The Bombay High Court allowed the commercial miscellaneous petition and set aside the impugned refusal order. The Court directed the Registrar to publish an advertisement of the Petitioner's trademark application in exercise of powers under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, enabling the consideration of any legitimate objections that might arise from the public or the rival proprietor.

One Important legal principle held in the case When a trademark application faces relative grounds of refusal under Section 11, it is expedient for the registry to utilize the discretion provided under the proviso to Section 20(1) to advertise the application before absolute rejection, ensuring that market realities and genuine third-party apprehensions are thoroughly tested.

[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]

Introduction:

The registration of a word mark forms the bedrock of brand protection, granting the owner exclusive statutory rights over the linguistic identity of a product. However, trademark registries frequently reject word marks while concurrently allowing stylized device marks containing the exact same word. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed this regulatory discrepancy in a significant statutory appeal concerning the trademark "ANAAR". The ruling elucidates the proper invocation of statutory discretion regarding the advertisement of trademark applications before absolute rejection, striking a balanced path between defensive registry policing and practical market testing.

Factual and Procedural Background:

The dispute arose when a corporate entity sought statutory protection for its footwear brand by filing an application for the registration of the word mark "ANAAR" in Class 25 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. During the examination process, the trademark registry issued an examination report citing statutory objections under Section 11(1) of the Act. The report highlighted that the applied mark was identical or similar to an earlier registered trademark, specifically Application Number 3108965, which covered similar goods and consequently created a severe likelihood of public confusion.

The applicant responded to the examination report, and subsequent administrative hearings were conducted by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks. Paradoxically, during the same period, the registry permitted the progression of three concurrent applications filed by the same applicant where the word "ANAAR" was represented in a stylized device form. However, when it came to the plain word mark, the Senior Examiner issued a final refusal order, rejecting the application outright without letting it proceed to the public advertisement stage.

Faced with the absolute rejection of its core word mark, the applicant filed a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the Bombay High Court, which was registered as a commercial miscellaneous petition. Moving proactively to clear its path, the applicant also initiated independent rectification proceedings against the conflicting cited trademark registration. Notably, the registered proprietor of the cited mark failed to file any counterstatement in those rectification proceedings, signaling a potential abandonment or lack of commercial interest in defending their registered mark.

Dispute Before the Court:

The core legal question before the Court was whether the trademark registry was legally justified in completely refusing the registration of the word mark at the pre-advertisement stage under the relative grounds of Section 11(1).

The applicant contended that an outright rejection without advertisement bypassed a critical exploratory phase provided by the statute. They argued that if the application had been advertised in the official journal, it would have become evident that the prior registration was not even actively being used in the market. The lack of a counterstatement in the rectification proceedings further proved that the registry's apprehensions of commercial confusion were visually overstated and lacked a real-world foundation.

On the other side, the representation for the trademark registry defended the refusal order, stating that a prior valid registration existed in the exact same business sector of footwear. The registry argued that while device marks offer distinct visual components that mitigate confusion, a plain word mark captures the entire phonetic and structural identity, making it highly conflicting with the existing registration. Therefore, the registry asserted that its proactive refusal was valid and that the applicant should wait for the rectification proceedings to conclude naturally before seeking registration.

Reasoning and Analysis of the Court:

The Court undertook a focused statutory analysis of the procedural routes available to the trademark registry when dealing with conflicting marks. The judgment centered entirely on the interpretation of Section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which governs the advertisement of trademark applications.

The main text of Section 20(1) mandates that once an application is accepted, the Registrar must cause it to be advertised to invite public opposition. Crucially, the Court highlighted the proviso attached to Section 20(1), which vests a special discretionary power in the Registrar. This proviso explicitly states that the Registrar may cause an application to be advertised before formal acceptance if it relates to a trademark where absolute grounds for refusal under Section 9(1) or relative grounds for refusal under Section 11(1) apply, or in any other exceptional circumstances where such a course appears expedient.

The Court observed that the Senior Examiner's refusal order relied heavily on theoretical factors, such as the nature of the goods, the category of buyers, and the methods of purchasing, to conclude that public confusion was inevitable. The Court reasoned that under the peculiar facts of this case, an outright rejection based on these assumptions was unwarranted. Since the registry had already allowed three parallel device marks featuring the word "ANAAR", and because the owner of the cited conflicting mark chose not to contest the rectification proceedings, the market realities were clearly different from the registry's rigid initial assessment.

The Court interpreted the proviso to Section 20(1) as a statutory safety valve designed precisely for such ambiguous scenarios. By directing a pre-acceptance advertisement, the registry does not automatically grant the trademark; rather, it opens the floor to see if the theoretical apprehensions translate into actual commercial objections from the existing proprietor or the public. The Court concluded that using this discretion to advertise the mark was the most expedient and legally sound method to determine if the reasons for refusal were credible or merely hypothetical.

Final Decision of the Court:

The Court exercised its appellate jurisdiction to make a limited but vital intervention in the matter. The Court set aside the impugned refusal order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks. Instead of ordering an outright registration, the Court directed the trademark registry to publish the application as an advertisement in the official journal by exercising its powers under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. This direction ensures that the application will undergo a transparent public notice phase, enabling the Registrar to evaluate any legitimate third-party objections that may be filed in response to the advertisement before making a final decision on registration. The commercial miscellaneous petition was thus formally disposed of with these operative directions.

Point of Law Settled:

This judgment firmly establishes that where relative grounds for refusal under Section 11(1) are invoked against a trademark application, the registry should not routinely resort to absolute, pre-advertisement rejections if there are mitigating factors or parallel device approvals. The ruling clarifies that the proviso to Section 20(1) serves as an essential procedural mechanism to test the validity of market confusion. By utilizing pre-acceptance advertisements in exceptional circumstances, the registry can transition from making speculative assumptions about consumer confusion to evaluating real-world market responses, thereby preventing legitimate businesses from being unfairly blocked at the entry gate of intellectual property protection.

Title of the Case: Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v. Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.

Date of Judgment: July 3, 2026

Case Number: Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:902

Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.

Written By:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .

Headnote of the Judgment:

In Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v. Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr. [Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 2025], the Bombay High Court dealt with a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, challenging the outright refusal of the word mark "ANAAR" in Class 25. The registry had rejected the application under Section 11(1) due to a prior footwear registration, despite allowing three parallel device marks for the same word. The Court held that absolute rejection at the initial stage was improper given that parallel rectification proceedings were uncontested by the prior registrant. Utilizing the proviso to Section 20(1), the Court set aside the refusal order and directed the registry to advertise the application, enabling a real-world assessment of potential public confusion through public notice.

Suggested SEO Tags:

Kleo Consumer Brands, Bombay High Court judgment, Trade Marks Act 1999, Section 91 appeal, Section 20 Trade Marks Act, trademark advertisement, word mark refusal, device mark registration, Section 11 trademark objection, footwear trademark dispute, ANAAR trademark, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks, trademark rectification, commercial miscellaneous petition, public confusion trademark, relative grounds for refusal, intellectual property litigation, pre acceptance advertisement, trademark journal publication, brand protection India, trademark registration process, Bombay High Court commercial division, statutory discretion Registrar, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

Suggested SEO Titles:

1. Trademark Rejection Reversed: Bombay HC Orders Advertisement of ANAAR Word Mark

2. Section 20 Proviso Explained: Bombay High Court Mandates Pre Acceptance Advertisement

3. Kleo Consumer Brands v. Registrar: Deceptive Similarity and the Power to Advertise

4. Why the Bombay HC Set Aside the Refusal of the ANAAR Trademark

5. Word Mark vs Device Mark: Understanding the Bombay High Court's Latest IP Ruling

6. Statutory Discretion under Section 20(1): Testing Market Confusion via Advertisement

7. Bombay High Court Rules on Pre Advertisement Rejections by Trademark Registry

8. Trademark Rectification and Prior Registration: Insights from 2026:BHC:902

9. Navigating Section 11 Objections: The Path from Refusal to Journal Publication

10. The Power of Public Notice: How the Bombay HC Rescued a Refused Trademark Application