The Delhi High Court yet again set aside a refusal order passed by an Assistant Examiner for rejecting the registration of a device mark of โ๐๐ฟ๐๐๐ข๐ถ๐น’ under section 9(1)(b) and held that the Assistant Registrar erred in dissecting the subject mark, a combination of words and devices, into its individual parts while considering registration which has to be considered as a whole for the purposes of grant of registration. The Delhi high court relied on a recent similar judgment in the case of ๐๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ถ ๐๐น๐ผ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐น ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ ๐. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐ด๐ถ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ง๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐, ๐๐ฒ๐น๐ต๐ถ, wherein it was observed that composite marks, if as whole does not exclusively falls within one of the excepted categories envisaged by Section 9(1)(b), stand ipso facto excluded from the scope of Section 9(1)(b) as the use of the word โexclusivelyโ (in the provision) completely forecloses any argument predicated on the โdominant partโ principle.
#trademarks #trademarkregistry #brandprotection #cruzoil #navaidkhan #adudhabi #registratoftrademarks #intellectualproperty #iplawyers #ipupdates #delhihighcourt
Mahtta & Co. is a leading Intellectual Property law firm in India, providing trademark, patent, copyright, and design legal services to global clients.
Copyright ยฉ 2026, Mahtta. All Rights Reserved | Developed by Onlincer