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
No comments:
Post a Comment