Factual Background: Mocemsa Care filed a trademark application (No. 4852344) on February 6, 2021, for a device mark under Class 3, covering beauty, skincare, and home fragrance products. The applicant claimed use since November 20, 2020, and submitted a supporting invoice. The Registrar of Trademarks refused registration under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing a lack of distinctiveness.
Procedural Background:The applicant replied to the examination report and attended a hearing on December 27, 2023. Despite these efforts, the Registrar refused registration on January 1, 2024, stating that the mark was composed of common words and lacked distinctiveness. Aggrieved, the applicant appealed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Reasoning of the Court:The court found that the Registrar erred in treating the mark as a mere combination of common words while ignoring its stylized composite form.The court held that distinctiveness should be judged holistically rather than by dissecting the mark into its components.The Registrar's rejection based on the applicant submitting only one invoice was deemed unfair, as the claimed prior use was only for a short period (one month), limiting the number of invoices available.
Decision:
The court set aside the impugned order, directed the Trade Marks Registry to advertise the application within three months, and allowed the application to proceed to opposition. Any objections would be decided on their own merits.
Case Title: Mocemsa Care Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Date of Order: March 26, 2025
Case Number: C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 20/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2199
Court: Delhi High Court
Hon’ble Judge:Hon'ble Justice Amit Bansal
