Niyam v2 is live — start for just ₹100 — 200 credits to try

february 2026

Delhi High Court · 2026-02-03

M/S. ADS AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Citation / case number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)-33/2024 2026:DHC:1134
Court
Delhi High Court
Petitioner
M/S. ADS AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.
Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Judgment text excerpt

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 33/2024 M/S. ADS AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Ankit Sahni and Mr. Chirag Ahluwalia, Advocates. versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhaya, CGSC with Mr. Amit Peswani, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) challenging impugned order dated 29.01.2024 in respect of Appellant’s Trademark Application No.4997781 in Class 33. Direction is sought to the Respondent to process the application for the mark ‘TAJPURIYA’ and advertise the mark in the Trademark Journal. 2. It is the case of the Appellant that Appellant is a company, which is one of the fastest growing liquor conglomerates in Indian alcohol beverage space and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, trading and selling liquor products. Appellant, honestly and bonafidely adopted the trademark TAJPURIYA in respect of alcoholic beverages and alcoholic preparations for making beverages. The mark is arbitrary in relation to the goods and is inherently distinctive. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 33/2024 Page 1 of 5 By:KAMAL KUMAR Signing Date:11.02.2026 19:25:01 3. It is stated that on 08.06.2021, Appellant filed a trademark application before the Respondent seeking registration of the mark TAJPURIYA in Class 33 on ‘proposed to be used’ basis. In the Examination Report dated 24.06.2021, Respondent raised an objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the 1999 Act, on the ground that it was a geographical name and not capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one person fr

M/S. ADS AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS · Niyam