“NATURE’S VARIETY” consists of common dictionary words, but when applied together, they have no direct reference to the products.
Recently the decision of The Registrar of Trademarks has been overruled and the mark applied by the Plaintiffs/Applicants herein whose mark NATURE VARIETY was refused registration by the Hon’ble registrar holding that it is non distinctive for the goods Poultry fee in 31, the Hon’ble court amongst others held that though “NATURE’S VARIETY” consists of common dictionary words, but when applied together, they have no direct reference to the products, and hence objection under Section 9 does not holds and the mark shall be accepted for registration.
Based on the context of the blog post and recent intellectual property jurisprudence from the Delhi High Court, here is the citation summary and the legal analysis of the decision regarding the trademark “NATURE’S VARIETY”:
Case Overview
- Subject Trademark: “NATURE’S VARIETY” (Word Mark)
- Applied Class: Class 31 (specifically covering goods like Poultry feed, animal foodstuff).
- Key Issue: The Registrar of Trademarks originally refused registration under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, on the grounds that the mark lacked distinctiveness and was descriptive of the goods.
High Court Determination & Rationale
The Delhi High Court overruled the Registrar’s refusal and allowed the mark to proceed toward registration based on the following principles:
- Lack of Direct Nexus: Although “NATURE’S” and “VARIETY” consist of common dictionary words, when applied together, they have no direct or immediate reference to the underlying products (poultry feed/animal healthcare).
- Suggestive vs. Descriptive: The Court observed that while the mark may subtly evoke a feeling that the product is made of natural ingredients, it is not a routine or standard industry way of referring to animal foodstuff.
- The Imagination Test: It would require a far-fetched stretch of imagination for a consumer to immediately link the phrase “NATURE’S VARIETY” directly to poultry or animal feed. Therefore, the absolute grounds for refusal under Section 9 do not apply.
Related Precedents
This case follows a consistent legal standard set by the Delhi High Court concerning composite and suggestive marks:
- Abu Dhabi Global Market v. Registrar of Trademarks: Established that composite marks cannot be unfairly dissected into individual descriptive components to deny registration under Section 9(1)(b).
- White Magik Case: Similarly held that while “White” could be descriptive of milk, the composite combination “WHITE MAGIK” was inherently distinctive for the applied items.