The Delhi High Court Division Bench, in a significant ruling dated February 10, 2026, overturned earlier refusals and permitted registration of the phrase **"ONE FOR ALL"** as a trademark in Class 16 for educational publications, marking an important development in the treatment of suggestive slogans and common English expressions in Indian trademark jurisprudence.
**Introduction**
The case revolves around the registrability of apparently commonplace phrases when applied as trademarks, particularly slogans or taglines used in the education and publishing sector. Indian trademark law under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 bars registration of marks devoid of distinctive character, yet the proviso allows registration where the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use. The Division Bench departed from the Single Judge's view that treated "ONE FOR ALL" as a laudatory, descriptive slogan inherently incapable of monopoly, instead classifying it as suggestive at most and inherently capable of functioning as a source identifier for educational books. This decision reinforces that distinctiveness must be evaluated contextually in relation to the specific goods, not in abstract or general linguistic terms, and highlights the protectability of suggestive rather than directly descriptive expressions even when composed of ordinary words.
**Factual Background**
Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited, a prominent publisher of educational books and academic materials catering to various school boards and competitive examinations, adopted the expression "ONE FOR ALL" on or around August 20, 2020, for its publications in Class 16. The company filed Trade Mark Application No. 4711190 on October 20, 2020, seeking registration of the word mark "ONE FOR ALL" specifically for printed educational materials. The Trade Marks Registry issued an Examination Report raising objections solely under Section 9(1)(a), asserting lack of inherent distinctiveness and requiring proof of acquired distinctiveness. Despite the applicant's reply and hearing, the Registrar refused registration on December 14, 2023, characterising the phrase as a common, non-distinctive expression that failed to distinguish the applicant's goods and noting insufficient evidence of secondary meaning.
**Procedural Background**
Aggrieved by the refusal, Oswaal Books filed an appeal under Section 91 before the Delhi High Court, registered as C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 19/2024. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated May 28, 2025, upholding the Registrar's order. The Single Judge held the mark to be a laudatory slogan descriptively conveying a "one-stop" or universal solution for academic needs, lacking inherent distinctiveness, and found the evidence (sales figures, promotions, etc.) insufficient to prove acquired distinctiveness, as usage was predominantly tied to the house mark "OSWAAL BOOKS" rather than standalone recognition of "ONE FOR ALL". The appellant then preferred the present intra-court Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 571/2025), challenging the Single Judge's findings on grounds including misapplication of descriptiveness tests, violation of the anti-dissection rule, erroneous reliance on public association standards, and failure to appreciate suggestive character.
**Reasoning and Decision of Court**
The Division Bench, speaking through Justice Om Prakash Shukla (with Justice C. Hari Shankar concurring), framed the core issue narrowly as whether "ONE FOR ALL" was disentitled to registration for want of distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a). The court extensively relied on its earlier exposition in Leayan Global Pvt. Ltd. v. Bata India Ltd. (2025), emphasising that distinctiveness must be assessed contextually in relation to the specific goods/services, not in vacuo. A common expression may gain distinctiveness when bearing no immediate connection to the goods. The Bench disagreed with the Single Judge's characterisation of the phrase as descriptive of books, reasoning that "ONE FOR ALL" does not directly evoke or describe printed educational materials, their quality, kind, purpose, or characteristics in Class 16. Instead, the phrase typically denotes a singular remedy replacing multiple processes and carries no natural or immediate association with books. At the highest, the mark is suggestive of broad coverage or universality, requiring imagination to link it to educational publications, thereby falling short of direct descriptiveness. The court noted the absence of any identical or deceptively similar marks cited in Class 16 and the lack of a Section 11 objection in the Examination Report. Finding no immediate connect between the mark and the goods, the Bench held the expression inherently capable of distinguishing the appellant's publications and thus registrable without needing to delve deeply into acquired distinctiveness evidence. Consequently, the court set aside both the Registrar's refusal order and the Single Judge's judgment, restored the application to its pre-refusal stage for further processing, and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.
**Point of Law Settled in the Case**
This judgment clarifies and settles several important principles in Indian trademark law concerning registration of slogans and common phrases. First, it reiterates that distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a) is not evaluated abstractly or linguistically in isolation but must be determined contextually with reference to the specific goods or services in question; a phrase commonplace in general language may still possess inherent distinctiveness for unrelated trade channels. Second, the decision sharpens the descriptiveness-suggestiveness spectrum by applying the imagination-straining test: if the connection between mark and goods is not immediate but requires mental effort, the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive and qualifies for registration even absent long use. Third, slogans and taglines are affirmatively recognised as capable of functioning as trademarks under Sections 2(m) and 2(zb), particularly in digitised markets where they often serve stronger source-identification roles than house marks. Finally, the ruling cautions against over-broad monopolisation concerns when no competing similar marks exist and no Section 11 objection arises, reinforcing that suggestive marks enjoy a lower threshold than purely descriptive ones and need not always prove acquired distinctiveness if inherently capable.
**Case Detail**
- **Title**: Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
- **Date of Order**: 10 February 2026
- **Case Number**: LPA 571/2025 & CM APPL. 56791/2025
- **Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:DB:XXXX (as appearing in reports; full neutral citation may be 2026:DHC:1249-DB or similar based on court format)
- **Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi
- **Name of Hon'ble Judges**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
**Disclaimer**: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice 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 Greenlights "ONE FOR ALL" Trademark for Oswaal Books: Suggestive Slogans Gain Protection
- From Refusal to Registration: Delhi HC Division Bench Holds "ONE FOR ALL" Suggestive, Not Descriptive for Educational Books
- Suggestive Character Triumphs: Delhi High Court Overturns Refusal of "ONE FOR ALL" Trademark in Class 16
- Contextual Distinctiveness Prevails: Landmark Ruling on Registrability of Common Phrases in Indian Trademark Law
**Suggested Tags**
trademark registration, Section 9(1)(a), distinctiveness, suggestive marks, descriptive marks, slogans as trademarks, Delhi High Court, Oswaal Books, ONE FOR ALL, Class 16, acquired distinctiveness, secondary meaning, Trade Marks Act 1999, LPA 571/2025, educational publications
**Headnote**
Delhi High Court (Division Bench) allows registration of "ONE FOR ALL" as trademark in Class 16 for educational books, holding the phrase suggestive rather than descriptive when viewed contextually; no immediate connection exists between the mark and printed publications; distinctiveness assessed relative to specific goods, not in abstract; common expressions capable of inherent distinctiveness absent direct descriptiveness; Single Judge and Registrar's orders set aside; application restored.
=====
Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited, a publisher of educational books and academic materials, adopted the mark "ONE FOR ALL" since August 20, 2020, for its Class 16 publications catering to multiple boards and exams, and filed application No. 4711190 on October 20, 2020. The Registrar refused registration on December 14, 2023, under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, deeming it a common non-distinctive expression without proven acquired distinctiveness. The Single Judge dismissed the appeal C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 19/2024 on May 28, 2025, holding the phrase laudatory and descriptive of a universal solution, with evidence insufficient for secondary meaning as usage tied to house mark "OSWAAL BOOKS". In the intra-court appeal LPA 571/2025, the Division Bench set aside both orders on February 10, 2026, finding the mark suggestive rather than descriptive in the context of Class 16 goods, as it lacks immediate connection to books, evokes no direct link to their characteristics, and requires imagination to associate with universality or broad coverage; absent similar marks or Section 11 objections, it possesses inherent distinctiveness capable of distinguishing the appellant's publications, restoring the application for further processing.
**Crisp Bullet Points of Law Settled in the Case**
- Distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a) must be assessed contextually in relation to the specific goods/services and not in vacuo or abstractly; a common expression may possess inherent distinctiveness when bearing no immediate connection to the goods (Para 26, relying on Leayan Global Pvt Ltd v Bata India Ltd, 2025:DHC:11331-DB).
- The descriptiveness-suggestiveness test turns on whether the connection between mark and goods is immediate (descriptive) or requires straining imagination (suggestive); suggestive marks qualify for registration even without long use if not directly descriptive (Paras 34-35).
- Slogans/taglines are capable of constituting trademarks under Sections 2(m) and 2(zb) and often perform strong source-identification functions in digitized markets (Paras 27-28).
- Common phrases cannot be presumed non-distinctive merely for linguistic commonality absent evidence of similar marks in the relevant class or Section 11 objections; monopolisation concerns do not arise where no competing use is shown (Paras 33, 36).
- Over-broad application of descriptiveness to suggestive marks is erroneous; "ONE FOR ALL" is suggestive at highest for educational books and satisfies statutory registrability under Section 9(1)(a) (Paras 31-36).
**Case Title**: Oswaal Books and Learnings Pvt.Ltd. Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks
**Order Date**: 10 February 2026
**Case Number**: LPA 571/2025 & CM APPL. 56791/2025
**Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:1249-DB
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi
**Name of Judges**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla
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
=====
