Court Finds Procedural Errors in Trademark Office's Decision, Calls for Fresh Consideration
In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has set aside a previous order by the Controller General of Trademarks that refused registration of a device trademark applied for by Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE. The Court, presided by Justice Jyoti Singh, found procedural lapses in the Trademark Office's decision-making process, directing a fresh consideration of the trademark application.
The case, Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE v. Controller General of Trademarks, revolved around the refusal to register a device mark for goods classified under Class 05, which includes pharmaceuticals, medical preparations, and other related products. The application, filed on June 12, 2025, was initially rejected on October 10, 2025, on grounds of alleged similarity with existing trademarks.
The primary contention from the appellant, represented by Advocate Abhinandan Khanduri, was that the Trademark Office did not correctly apply the anti-dissection rule, which necessitates comparing marks in their entirety rather than dissecting them into individual components. The appellant argued that their mark, which includes the word 'LIFESCIENCE' and a distinctive tree device, differs significantly from the cited marks, which include 'AYU,' 'AYU18,' and 'AYU SHAKTI.'
The Court noted that two of the cited marks were not valid for consideration: one was objected to and unprosecuted since 2020, and another was under opposition. These procedural oversights were pivotal in the Court's decision to remand the matter for a fresh evaluation.
Justice Singh emphasized the importance of assessing the overall impression of marks rather than focusing solely on dominant parts like the word 'AYU.' The decision mandates the Trademark Office to reassess the application, providing Ayu Lifescience an opportunity for a hearing within three months.
This judgment underscores the necessity for meticulous adherence to procedural rules in trademark registration processes and reinforces the importance of comprehensive comparison methods in determining trademark similarities.
Bottom Line :
Trademark application - Refusal to register a trademark under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Respondent failed to consider the objections and oppositions to cited marks and did not apply the anti-dissection rule - The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 11(1), Section 91
