Shruti Sharma Vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks:22.04.2026:C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 21/2026:DHC:Jyoti Singh, H.J.
Brief Facts
The appellant challenged the refusal of her trademark application for “AROMA SPHERE” in Class 35, relating to retail and marketing of fragrance-based products. The Registrar had rejected the application under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground of deceptive similarity with an earlier mark “AROMASPHERE”.
The appellant contended that the refusal was erroneous as the cited mark pertained to distinct and unrelated services, and that the Registrar failed to consider her prior and actual use supported by evidence.
Issues
- Whether similarity of marks alone is sufficient to refuse registration under Section 11.
- Whether dissimilarity of goods/services must be considered while assessing likelihood of confusion.
- Whether the Registrar erred in overlooking evidence of actual prior use.
Key Findings
- The Court held that mere similarity of marks is not decisive; similarity or identity of goods/services is an equally critical factor.
- It was emphasized that the Registrar must examine whether the competing goods/services are similar or related, as mandated under Section 11 and Rule 33 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.
- The Court found that the Registrar failed to consider the appellant’s submission that the cited mark covered business marketing services, whereas the applied mark related to retail and sale of fragrance products.
- The Registrar also erred in treating the application as filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, despite evidence of actual use since 31.03.2023 being on record.
- The Court reiterated that no monopoly can be claimed over an entire class of goods/services merely by registration of a mark in that class.
Decision
The Delhi High Court set aside the refusal order and remanded the matter to the Registrar for fresh consideration, directing a reasoned decision after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Significance
This judgment reinforces that trademark examination must go beyond phonetic or visual similarity and must include a holistic assessment of nature of goods/services and likelihood of confusion. It also highlights the importance of properly evaluating user evidence, preventing mechanical refusals by the Registry.
Disclaimer
Do not treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain subjective errors.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPLaw #Trademark #IPIndiaupdate #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
