Blog

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 ‘𝗖𝗿𝘂𝘇𝗢𝗶𝗹’ 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 𝗔𝗯𝘂 𝗗𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝘃. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝘀, 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗵𝗶, 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 “exclusively” (in the provision) completely forecloses any argument predicated on the “dominant part” principle.