Kunj Behari Sarraf v. Registrar Of Trade Marks

$~5 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ KUNJ BEHARI SARRAF .....Appellant Through:

Mr.

Anshuman Upadhyay, Mr.

Naseem and Mr.

Manish Kumar Mishra, Advs.

M: 7916608432 versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS .....Respondent Through:

Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC (Through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 11.03.2025 1.

The present appeal has been filed under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, read with Rule 156 of The Trade Marks Rules, 2017, assailing the order dated 26th April, 2024, whereby, the respondent has rejected the trademark application bearing no. 5443541, seeking registration of the mark in Class 43, on the ground that it is devoid of distinctive character.

2.

This Court, on the last date of hearing, had noted the submission made on behalf of the appellant that for a similar mark, registration has already been granted to the appellant.

3.

Accordingly, directions had been issued to the appellant to file the requisite documents, with regard thereto.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

4.

The concerned documents pertaining to the registration in favour of the appellant, have been filed on behalf of the appellant. 5.

The document pertaining to the registration of the device mark for the mark DHABA vide application no. 3653885 in Class 43, is reproduced as under:

6.

Certificate of Registration issued by the Trade Marks Registry, Government of India in favour of the appellant for the device mark The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

, is reproduced as under:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

7.

Noting the aforesaid, it is manifest that for similar marks, the appellant has already been granted registration. 8.

Accordingly, this Court is of the view that since the registrations of similar marks have already been allowed in favour of the appellant, there is no impediment in granting registration in favour of the appellant with respect to the trademark application bearing no. 5443541, which has been rejected by the impugned order.

9.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at this stage, submits that considering the fact that registrations have already been granted in favour of the appellant herein, the matter can be remanded back to the Trade The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Marks Registry for fresh consideration of the application of the appellant. 10.

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 26th April, 2024, passed by the Trade Marks Registry, is set aside. 11.

The trademark application, bearing no. 5443541 filed by the appellant before the Trade Marks Registry, is revived to its original number. 12.

The Trade Marks Registry shall deal with the aforesaid application of the appellant, in accordance with law and proceed to advertise the same for the purposes of grant of registration.

13.

The present appeal is accordingly allowed, in terms of the aforesaid directions.

14.

The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the present order to the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks of India, on E-mail ID: llc-ipo@gov.in, for compliance. MINI PUSHKARNA, J MARCH 11, 2025/kr The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.