Delhi High Court Upholds ‘20-20’ Trademark Registration For Avon Agro, Dismisses Parle Products’ Appeal

The bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while deciding the matter, held that Parle’s later commercial use of the mark could not override Avon Agro’s earlier application for registration. The Court emphasised that both companies had filed their trademark applications on a “proposed to be used” basis, making the date of filing a crucial factor in determining priority.

“…..it is clear that the respondent no.2 had applied for registration of mark “20-20” on 29.09.2007, while the appellant had applied on 04.10.2007, thus, undeniably making respondent no.2 the senior/prior adopter of the said mark. Consequently, the putting to use of the mark ‘20-20’ by the appellant while manufacturing goods from the year 2009 would also be rendered inconsequential in terms of the aforesaid ratio which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is squarely applicable to the present case”, the Court ruled.

The dispute dates back nearly two decades. Avon Agro Industries first applied to register the mark “20-20” on September 27, 2007 for goods falling under Class 30 of the Trade Marks classification. This category includes food products such as coffee, tea, biscuits and other edible goods.

A week later, on October 4, 2007, Parle Products filed a similar application seeking registration of the same mark. Like Avon Agro, Parle had also filed its application on a proposed use basis, indicating that the mark had not yet been commercially used at the time of filing.

Parle subsequently launched products under the “20-20” mark between 2007 and 2008. Based on this commercial use, the company argued that it should be treated as the prior user in the market. Parle relied on the “first in the market” principle recognised by the Supreme Court in the case of Neon Laboratories Ltd v Medical Technologies Ltd. According to Parle, actual use of the mark in commerce should take precedence over the mere filing of a trademark application.

Avon Agro, however, contended that it was the senior applicant and had consistently pursued its trademark registration process for several years. The company argued that its earlier filing date entitled it to priority under the Trade Marks Act.

While examining the dispute, the High Court held that when competing trademark applications are filed on a proposed use basis, the later commercial use by one of the applicants cannot defeat the earlier filing date of the other.

“When two entities apply for a similar, identical or a deceptively similar mark, that too on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis, subsequent use of the marks applied for by one of the parties would not enure to its benefit in any manner,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, the senior adopter or earlier applicant would prevail over a junior applicant for the purposes of registration.

Parle had also argued that Avon Agro had not used the mark for a prolonged period and therefore its rights should be considered extinguished due to non use. The company claimed that it had been continuously using the “20-20” mark in the market since 2008 or 2009.

However, the Court was not persuaded by this argument. It observed that Avon Agro had been actively pursuing its trademark application since 2007 and eventually succeeded in obtaining registration in 2025.

“Merely for the reason that it has taken 17 long years for Avon Agro to establish its claim for registration of the mark ‘20-20’… will not, ipso facto, give any special benefit or treatment to Parle,” the Court said.

The Court also took note of Parle’s earlier position during the proceedings. At one stage, Parle had argued that the competing marks were phonetically, visually and conceptually distinct. It had even stated that it would restrict its use of the “20-20” mark only to biscuits.

In light of this earlier stance, the Court found it contradictory that Parle later attempted to argue that Avon Agro’s mark was deceptively similar.

“This is a classic case of a party approbating and reprobating at the same time. This is impermissible in law,” the Court observed.

After considering all the submissions and the record of the case, the High Court concluded that there was no merit in Parle Products’ appeal. The Court therefore dismissed the challenge and upheld the decision of the Registrar of Trade Marks granting registration of the “20-20” mark to Avon Agro Industries.

“….in the present case respondent no.2 had consistently been pursuing its application for the mark ‘20-20’ right from the year 2007 till the year 2025 when it was finally registered. From the facts which have been brought on record and have been noted by this Court in the preceding paragraphs, it is abundantly clear that respondent no.2 was not just consistent but also vigilant in pursuing and processing its application to the logical conclusion. In that context too, merely because appellant had commenced manufacturing of goods using the mark ‘20-20’ prior to the respondent no.2 as also getting prior registration, will not come in the way of or preclude respondent no.2 from asserting its right and the mark ‘20-20’ being registered in its favour…”, the Court ruled.

With this ruling, the Court reaffirmed the importance of the filing date in trademark registration disputes where competing parties apply on a proposed use basis, clarifying that later commercial use alone cannot defeat the rights of an earlier applicant.

Case Title: Parle Products Private Limited v. The Registrar of Trademarks & Anr.

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Date of Judgement: 10.03.2026