Parle Products Pvt Ltd Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
[Case Title] : Parle Products Pvt Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Date of Judgment: [28.07.2026]
Case No.: LPA 316/2026 & CM APPL. 27819-20/2026
Neutral Citation : 2026:DHC:6020-DB
[Court Name] : High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Factual and Procedural Background
Respondent no. 2 filed trademark application no. 1606126 for the mark 20-20 in class 30 on 27.09.2007 on a proposed to be used basis. Appellant Parle Products Pvt Ltd subsequently filed trademark application no. 1608183 for the mark 20-20 in class 30 on 04.10.2007, also on a proposed to be used basis, and commenced commercial use in 2007-2008. After prolonged administrative and judicial proceedings, the mark of respondent no. 2 was advertised in August 2020. Appellant filed an opposition which was dismissed by the Registrar of Trade Marks on 29.04.2025. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was dismissed on 10.03.2026. Assailing this, the appellant filed the present letters patent appeal before the Division Bench.
Dispute before Court
Whether subsequent commercial use and market presence acquired by a junior applicant during the pendency of trademark registration proceedings can grant superior rights to oust a senior applicant who applied earlier on a proposed to be used basis under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Reasoning of Judge
The Court held that rights conferred upon registration relate back to the date of application. The senior applicant had actively pursued registration for 17 years and non-use was due to delays of the Registry. Subsequent commercial use by a junior applicant during pendency of registration proceedings is inconsequential under Section 18 and cannot defeat the rights of the prior applicant. Furthermore, the appellant had previously represented to the Registry that its mark was distinct from cited marks, and could not be permitted to approbate and reprobate by later claiming deceptive similarity.
Decision
The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed along with all pending applications, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge and the registration granted to respondent no. 2.
One Important legal principle held in the case
In trademark registration proceedings under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the priority of application date governs, and subsequent commercial use of a mark by a junior applicant during the pendency of a senior applicant's registration application cannot defeat the superior statutory claim of the senior applicant.
[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 High Court of Delhi recently delivered a significant ruling on trademark priority, statutory rights under registration proceedings, and the doctrine of prior adoption versus subsequent commercial user. The Division Bench addressed whether an earlier trademark application filed on a proposed to be used basis can be defeated by a subsequent applicant who actually launched products in the market while the prior application remained pending before the Trade Marks Registry. The ruling brings notable clarity to commercial entities and intellectual property practitioners regarding the sanctity of filing dates in trademark prosecution.
Factual and Procedural Background:
The dispute traces back to late 2007 when two separate entities sought registration for the trademark 20-20 in Class 30 covering food products, biscuits, and confectionery. Respondent no. 2 filed trademark application number 1606126 on 27.09.2007 on a proposed to be used basis. Just a few days later, Parle Products Pvt Ltd filed trademark application number 1608183 on 04.10.2007 for the same mark 20-20, also on a proposed to be used basis.
During examination of Parle's application, the Registry cited the earlier application of respondent no. 2 as a conflicting mark under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. In response, Parle contended that its mark was visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinct, and offered to restrict its specification of goods to biscuits. Parle subsequently commenced commercial sales of its biscuits under the mark 20-20 around 2007-2008 and obtained registration in November 2017.
Meanwhile, the application of respondent no. 2 faced prolonged administrative delays, refusal, and subsequent appeals. After intervention by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in August 2019, the application of respondent no. 2 was finally advertised in the Trade Marks Journal on 10.08.2020. Parle filed a notice of opposition on 25.11.2020 claiming extensive user, goodwill, and market reputation. The Registrar of Trade Marks dismissed Parle's opposition on 29.04.2025 and issued a registration certificate to respondent no. 2. Parle challenged this before a Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi, who dismissed the appeal on 10.03.2026. Aggrieved by the decision, Parle preferred a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
Dispute Before the Court
The core legal question before the Court was whether a prior applicant who applied for a mark on a proposed to be used basis can be denied registration merely because a subsequent applicant introduced goods under the identical mark into the market earlier and generated substantial commercial goodwill.
Parle contended that trademark rights stem from actual commercial use in the market rather than mere registration filings. Relying on the first in the market test and common law principles governing passing off, Parle asserted that its continuous market presence since 2007 gave it superior rights under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which should override a dormant trademark application.
On the other hand, respondent no. 2 contended that as the senior adopter and prior applicant, its priority date of 27.09.2007 could not be wiped out by Parle's subsequent market launch. It argued that non-use of its mark during the 17-year interregnum was purely due to administrative and procedural delays in the Trade Marks Registry and pending opposition proceedings, which should not prejudice its statutory rights.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The High Court conducted an extensive analysis of statutory provisions under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, specifically examining Section 18, Section 11, Section 28, and Section 34. The Court observed that when two entities apply for identical or deceptively similar marks on a proposed to be used basis, Section 18 establishes that rights upon registration relate back to the date of application.
The Bench carefully analyzed previous judicial precedents, including the judgment of the High Court of Madras in Mohan Goldwater Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. Khoday Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (1977) and decisions of the High Court of Delhi in Radico Khaitan Ltd. v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (2019) and Drums Food International Pvt. Ltd. v. Euro Ice Cream (2011). These rulings consistently establish that for registration entitlement under Section 18, priority is determined as on the date of application. Subsequent commercial use by a junior applicant during the pendency of a senior application does not grant any special statutory privilege or override the prior applicant's claim.
The Court distinguished the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. (2016). The Bench observed that Neon Laboratories was rendered in the context of an interim injunction in an action for passing off, where established market goodwill carries pre-eminence. In contrast, the present dispute pertained strictly to statutory registration and opposition proceedings under Section 18, where the relevant date of assessment is the date of filing.
Additionally, the Court held that respondent no. 2 could not be accused of abandoning its mark or hoarding it without intent, as it had diligently litigated and pursued its registration across various forums for 17 years. Delay caused by procedural bottlenecks of the Registry cannot operate to the detriment of a diligent applicant.
Finally, the Court pointed out that Parle had engaged in approbation and reprobation. In 2008, when replying to the Registry's examination report, Parle had taken a firm stand that the rival marks were visually, phonetically, and conceptually distinct in order to secure its own registration. Having obtained registration on that representation, Parle could not be permitted to take a contradictory stance in opposition proceedings by claiming that the mark of respondent no. 2 was deceptively similar.
Final Decision of the Court
The Division Bench found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge. The Court held that respondent no. 2 was the senior applicant whose priority related back to 27.09.2007, making Parle's subsequent use in 2007-2008 inconsequential for determining registration rights. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal and all connected pending applications were dismissed.
Point of Law Settled
The Court reaffirmed the crucial principle of trademark law that in statutory registration proceedings under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, priority between competing applicants filing on a proposed to be used basis is determined strictly by the date of application. Subsequent commercial entry into the market by a junior applicant while a senior application is pending before the Registry does not divest the senior applicant of their statutory rights. Furthermore, the ruling enforces the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by making inconsistent representations regarding mark similarity before the Trade Marks Registry to suit different stages of litigation.
Title of the Case: Parle Products Pvt Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 28.07.2026
Case Number: LPA 316/2026 & CM APPL. 27819-20/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6020-DB
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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 Parle Products Pvt Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr. (2026:DHC:6020-DB), the High Court of Delhi dismissed an appeal against a Single Judge order upholding the registration of the trademark 20-20 in favor of respondent no. 2. Both parties had applied for registration in Class 30 on a proposed to be used basis, with respondent no. 2 applying on 27.09.2007 and Parle on 04.10.2007. Parle commenced commercial sales during the pendency of proceedings and opposed respondent's registration. The Division Bench held that priority under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is governed by the application date, and subsequent market use by a junior applicant during procedural delays cannot oust the senior applicant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Suggested SEO Tags:
Parle Products, Registrar of Trade Marks, Delhi High Court, Trademark Law, Section 18 Trade Marks Act, Trademark Priority, Proposed To Be Used, First To File, Trademark Opposition, Senior Applicant, Junior User, Prior Adoption, Section 34 Trade Marks Act, Section 11 Trade Marks Act, Approbate and Reprobate, Trademark Registration, Intellectual Property Law, Class 30 Trademarks, Biscuit Trademark Dispute, Neon Laboratories Case, Division Bench Judgment, High Court Judgment 2026, Trademark Prosecution, IP Litigation India, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor
Suggested SEO Titles:
1. Delhi High Court Rules Application Date Determines Priority in 20-20 Trademark Dispute
2. Parle Products v Registrar of Trade Marks: Delhi HC Upholds Priority of Senior Trademark Applicant
3. Trademark Registration vs Market User: Key Principles Settled in Parle 20-20 Case
4. Subsequent User Cannot Oust Prior Trademark Applicant: Delhi High Court Analysis
5. Section 18 Trade Marks Act: Delhi HC Clarifies Scope of Proposed To Be Used Applications
6. Parle Loss in 20-20 Trademark Battle: Division Bench Reaffirms First to File Priority
7. Can Subsequent Commercial Use Defeat an Earlier Trademark Filing? Delhi HC Answers
8. High Court of Delhi Explains Doctrine of Priority and Approbate-Reprobate in Trademark Law
9. Delhi High Court Distinguishes Passing Off Principles from Trademark Registration Rights
10. Legal Analysis: Parle Products Pvt Ltd v Registrar of Trade Marks on Trademark Priority
