Case Title: Saranya Parthiban Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks
Date of Order: 27.02.2025
Case Number: C.M.A. (TM) No.4 of 2024
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Hon’ble Judge: Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Brief Facts & Issue:
The appellant, Saranya Parthiban, applied for registration of the word mark "RAW SKINN" under Class 3 for various cosmetic and skincare products.
The application (No. 5150499) was filed on 27.09.2021, asserting use since 17.08.2021.
The Registrar of Trade Marks rejected the application on 19.12.2023, citing Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, stating that the mark was descriptive and merely designated the characteristics of the goods.
The appellant argued that the mark was arbitrary or suggestive, not descriptive, and relied on tax invoices to show usage.
The respondent contended that "RAW SKINN" was intended for products used on human skin and was therefore descriptive.
Reasoning:
The High Court examined whether the mark "RAW SKINN" was descriptive or suggestive.
It noted that no conflicting mark was cited in the examination report.
The court held that trademark classification must be done in context with the goods it applies to.
While the mark was not purely arbitrary, the court found that it was suggestive rather than descriptive.
The Registrar’s order lacked proper reasoning, as it did not discuss or address the appellant’s contentions and supporting judgments.
Decision:
The impugned order dated 19.12.2023 was set aside.
The court directed that the trademark application proceed to advertisement.
It clarified that this decision would not bind any future opponents who might challenge the application.
Law Point Held:
A trademark cannot be rejected as descriptive without a detailed reasoning process considering its placement in the distinctiveness spectrum.
The suggestive nature of a mark, as opposed to descriptiveness, allows it to proceed for advertisement.
Failure to discuss applicant's contentions and provide a reasoned order can lead to judicial interference and setting aside of the rejection.
This case reinforces the principle that mere perception of descriptiveness is insufficient to reject a trademark; the Registrar must provide a well-reasoned order.
