PARLIAMENT AS A TRADEMARK (Q:PROHIBITED ??)

The Delhi High Court dealt with appeals transferred from the abolished IPAB challenging refusal of trademark applications for “PARLIAMENT” marks. The Registrar had rejected the marks under Sections 9(1)(a) and 9(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, citing the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. The appellant argued that “PARLIAMENT” is a common noun used globally and not identical to “Indian Parliament” or its pictorial representation. Entry 17 of the Schedule of the Emblems and Names Act shows that the aforesaid prohibition is in respect of 'name of the Parliament or the Legislature of any State'. The prohibition is not in respect of the words 'PARLIAMENT' or 'LEGISLATURE' in itself. The word 'PARLIAMENT' is not unique to India as various other countries across the world such as Australia, Hong Kong, New Zealand, United Arab Emirates use the word 'PARLIAMENT' to refer to their legislative organs. appellant is not seeking to use and register the mark 'INDIAN PARLIAMENT' or 'PARLIAMENT OF INDIA' or even a pictorial representation of the Indian Parliament as a part of the subject marks. the mark 'PARLIAMENT'/ PARLIAMENT-formative marks are not prohibited under the provisions of the Emblems and Names Act and, consequently, do not contradict  Section 9(2)(d) of the Act. Accordingly, the present appeals are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The Court held that the Act prohibits only specific names like “Parliament of India,” not the generic word “PARLIAMENT.” Consequently, the refusals were set aside and the appeals allowed.

Case Title: Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd vs Registrar Of Trademarks on 29 April, 2025, Delhi High Court. (TM no 2736355 TM No 2511784)

 

Emblems and Names Act, 1950

The Act was enacted to prevent the improper use of certain names and emblems for commercial and professional purposes. It prohibits any person from using, without prior permission of the Central Government, specified names or emblems in connection with trade, business, calling, profession, patents, trademarks, or designs. The prohibited list, given in the Schedule, includes names and emblems of national importance such as the Parliament, Supreme Court, High Courts, United Nations, Gandhi, Nehru, Shivaji, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Ashoka Chakra, Dharma Chakra, Interpol, and buildings of important government institutions. Registrars of companies, trademarks, and designs must refuse registration of any name, trademark, or design violating the Act. The objective is to safeguard national institutions, symbols, and respected personalities from commercial exploitation or misuse. 

PATENT RIGHTS STRENGTHENED: DONG YANG WINS KEY APPEAL ON SIMPLE BUT NOVEL INVENTION "simple invention is patentable if it is novel, non-obvious, and addresses a technical problem with ingenuity."

 

In Dong Yang PC, Inc. v. Controller of Patents and Designs [C.A. (COMM.IPD-PAT) 60/2024], the Delhi High Court, led by Justice Mini Pushkarna, emphasized that even a simple invention is patentable if it is novel, non-obvious, and addresses a technical problem with ingenuity.

The case concerned a Vertical Rotary Parking System designed to reduce noise through smoother motion, less friction, and fewer contact points. The Controller had rejected the patent application, stating it lacked inventive step and offered no technical advancement over prior art. The invention was dismissed as a mere workshop modification involving the reversal of male and female portions in the pull gear and suspension chain.

However, the Court disagreed, stating the Controller had not demonstrated how the invention lacked technical advancement or why it would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Citing the Avery Dennison judgment, the Court highlighted that a key test for inventiveness is the time gap between prior art and the new invention. Here, despite the prior art being from the appellant, the absence of similar third-party innovations over time indicated non-obviousness.

The Court found that labeling the improvements as “mechanical” did not meet the legal threshold and the Controller’s reference to “common general knowledge” was vague and unsupported. It emphasized that simplicity is not a bar to patentability and that even minor changes can lead to a new invention if they solve a technical problem with ingenuity.

Finding the Controller’s order lacking proper analysis and justification, the Court held it unsustainable and directed the patent application to be re-examined.

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT: Trademark Victory for Veerji Malai Chaap Wale: Delhi HC Penalizes Imitator Food Joints

In a trademark infringement case, the Delhi High Court awarded ₹5 lakh in damages to the popular food chain Veerji Malai Chaap Wale. Justice Amit Bansal passed the order against five eateries that failed to appear in court, resulting in an ex parte decree and imposition of exemplary damages. The defendants, located in Delhi, Raipur, Uttar Pradesh, and Haridwar, were found using deceptively similar names such as VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE and VEERE DI MALAI CHAAP & KATHI KABAB, and were listed on platforms like Zomato and Swiggy. Each was ordered to pay ₹1 lakh. The Court held that the use of these names was a dishonest attempt to exploit the goodwill of Veerji Restaurant, misleading consumers and benefiting unfairly from its reputation. As the defendants filed no written statement, the Court accepted the plaintiff’s allegations as admitted and issued a decree accordingly.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI, CS(COMM)862/2023 with I.A. 24140/2023 and I.A. 11635/2025

PATENT

 

Tesla, Inc files new Trademark application for "TESLA ROBOTAXI" after setbacks with generic terms

 TESLA ROBOTAXI

Tesla is renewing its efforts to secure a trademark for its autonomous vehicle service by filing a new application for the term "Tesla Robotaxi." This move comes after previous attempts to trademark more generic names like "Robotaxi" and "Cybercab" were hindered by regulatory challenges.

Last month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) informed the company that its application for "Robotaxi" lacked sufficient specificity, noting that the term is widely used by other companies in the industry.

The latest trademark application for "Tesla Robotaxi" was filed on May 30, 2025, under US Serial Number: 99211111, with Tesla, Inc., a Texas-based corporation, listed as the owner.

Trademark Infringement: Even Brief Consumer Confusion is Enough, Rules Delhi High Court

In a significant ruling on trademark law, the Delhi High Court has held that even momentary confusion in the mind of a consumer is sufficient to establish trademark infringement under Indian law. The decision came in the case of Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal & Anr., where American sportswear company Under Armour, Inc. successfully restrained an Indian clothing brand from using the mark “AERO ARMOUR.”

The ruling, delivered by a division bench on May 23, 2025, pertains to trademark Class 25, which includes clothing, footwear, and headgear. The Court emphasized that the duration of consumer confusion is immaterial; even short-lived or initial confusion can fulfill the criteria for deceptive similarity under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act 1999.

The confusion, albeit limited to the initial stage, is sufficient to satisfy the condition of deceptive similarity as contemplated under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act," the bench observed.

“Extension of Limitation” by Supreme Court of India in view of Covid-19 Virus

The Supreme court of India has taken suo moto cognizance in a petition for “Extension of Limitation” in view of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws (both Central and/or State). 

In order to obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country, the Court ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not, shall stand extended w.e.f. 15th March 2020 till further order to be passed by this Court.

While pronouncing the order, the court exercised the power under Article 142 read with Article 141 of the Constitution of India and declared that this order is a binding order within the meaning of Article 141 on all Courts/Tribunals and authorities.

The court has also directed that this order may be brought to the notice of all High Courts in India for further communication to all subordinate Courts/Tribunals within their respective jurisdiction.

In view of this court’s order, it is likely that the Indian Patent Office and the Indian Trade Marks Registry issue specific notices clarifying automatic extension of time in respect of matters, such as filing of applications (including PCT filing), replying to office action, filing of any other documents in respect of application/opposition/rectification, hearings and in any other related matter, where there is prescribed deadline falling on March 15, 2020 and thereafter. This will bring relief not only to the applicant/opponent/petitioner/respondent and other interested parties in any proceeding but also to attorneys and agents in India and abroad.