Delhi High Court rules marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic; cannot be registered as Trademark

The Delhi High Court has held that the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic in nature and incapable of being registered as a Trade Mark.

"There is a widespread use of the Mark ‘TIGER’ for various goods and services across India. Hence, ‘TIGER’ is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also not produced any material to show that the Mark ‘TIGER’ has acquired secondary meaning. The Mark ‘TIGER’ does not have an exclusive character and, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim exclusive right over the same", Justice Tejas Karia has held while refusing a plea seeking an interim injunction restraining infringement of the Mark, ‘TIGER GOLD BRAND', infringement of Copyright, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, unfair competition by directly / indirectly selling, advertising, mentioning, and / or using the Mark ‘TIGER PREMIUM BRAND'.

"The Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark are not deceptively similar as the Impugned Mark has to be considered as a whole. The Impugned Mark considered as a whole is wholly dissimilar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, the Impugned Markis visually different to the Plaintiff’s Mark, even the ‘TIGER’ device in the rival Marks are different. The colour scheme of the Impugned Mark is also different from the colour scheme of the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark is not deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark. Accordingly, considering the Impugned Mark as a whole there is no deceptive similarity between the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark. As ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are found to be generic and common to the trade, the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership over the part of the Impugned Mark containing the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ as a part of them", the bench held.

In the present case, High Court said the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark if considered as a whole cannot be held to be deceptively similar and are able to be distinguished by the use of word ‘PREMIUM’. In addition, it added, the descriptive nature of the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ commonly used in the hospitality industry shows that there is no deceptive similarity between the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark.

"The rival Marks are not identical / deceptively similar, the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark comprises of generic words, which cannot be monopolised by any party. Further, the Plaintiff has not been able to make a case of misrepresentation by the Defendant nor has it been able to prove damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the adoption of the Impugned Mark by the Defendant. Further, the Plaintiff has not been able to establish goodwill and reputation and, therefore, prima facie, a case of passing off has not been made out by the Plaintiff. There is no likelihood of confusion amongst the class of consumers, which is likely to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff and dilute the Plaintiff’s Mark", the bench ordered.