This case involves the appellant, Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd, challenging the refusal of their trademark applications for the word "PARLIAMENT" and related "PARLIAMENT-formative" marks by the Registrar of Trade Marks. The appellant had been using these marks extensively since 2013 and had obtained several registrations, claiming genuine use and reputation associated with the marks. The Registrar, however, refused registration under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, mainly on the grounds that the word "PARLIAMENT" is a common generic term used to refer to legislative bodies, specifically the Indian Parliament, and is protected under the Emblems and Names Act, which prohibits registration of certain names or emblems that may cause deception or misrepresentation.
The appellant contended that their use was bona fide, and registration granted earlier had established their rights. They further argued that the term "PARLIAMENT" has been used extensively in commerce and should not be denied registration solely because it is a common term or because some prior registrations exist. The respondent, the Registrar, maintained that the word "PARLIAMENT" is a public and legislative term, and registration of such marks could create undue monopoly over a term that describes a legislative institution, which is contrary to statutory provisions and public policy.
A significant aspect of the case involved the legal interpretation of Sections 9(2)(d) and 9(1)(a) of the Act, along with the applicability of the Emblems and Names Act. The Court examined whether existing registrations of similar marks by third parties were lawful or in violation of the law, and whether the Registrar had the authority to cancel or expunge any registrations that were improperly granted.
Throughout the proceedings, the appellant kept asserting their rights based on prior use and registration, while the respondent highlighted the statutory prohibitions on registering such common and public property terms. The proceedings also addressed procedural issues following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), with the case now being heard directly by the High Court under the new tribunals framework.
In its final order, the Court observed that registration of marks containing the word "PARLIAMENT" is not absolutely prohibited but is subject to compliance with legal provisions, especially the restrictions under the Emblems and Names Act. The Court allowed the appeals, directed the respondent to process the applications according to law, and set aside the earlier refusals, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of the legal restrictions and prior rights.
