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.