KAPIL GOYAL vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2026 + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 15/2025 KAPIL GOYAL .....Appellant Versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Sandeep Narula, Mr. Rehan Narula & Mr. Deepanshu Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent : Ms. Nidhi Raman, Mr. Arnav Mittal, Mr. Mayank Sansanwal & Mr. Om Ram, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT TEJAS KARIA, J 1. This is an Appeal filed by the Appellant under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) and Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 (“Rules”) read with the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, seeking setting aside of the order dated 24.01.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by the learned Senior Examiner of Trade Marks refusing registration of the Trade Mark “DOUBLE-CHOICE” (“Appellant’s Mark”) bearing Application No. 5987240 in Class 30. Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 15/2025 Page 1 of 9 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:09.01.2026 19:22:56 FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 2. The Appellant is engaged in the business of trading of rice, flour and preparations made from cereals. On 20.06.2023, the Appellant filed an Application bearing No. 5987240 for the registration of the Appellant’s Mark on a proposed-to-be-used basis in Class 30. 3. Vide Examination Report dated 06.11.2023, objections were raised under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act claiming that the Appellant’s Mark is devoid of distinctive character, in addition to Section 9(1)(b) of the Act claiming that the Appellant’s Mark consists exclusively of words or indications which may serve in trade to designate the characteristics of the goods. 4. In response to the said Examination Report, the Appellant filed its det