Delhi High Court Rules Trademark Office Cannot Raise New Objections Post-Examination Report in TAJPURIYA Case

In the matter of M/s Ads Agro Industries Pvt Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, the Delhi High Court delivered a pivotal judgment on the procedural and substantive aspects of trademark refusals under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The case concerned the trademark application for the mark TAJPURIYA in Class 33, covering alcoholic beverages, filed on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

The Trade Marks Office initially issued an Examination Report raising an objection solely on the ground that TAJPURIYA was a geographical name incapable of distinguishing the goods. In response, Ads Agro submitted a detailed reply asserting that the mark was arbitrary, inherently distinctive, and bore no geographical connection to the goods.

Following a hearing, the Trade Marks Office refused registration. However, the refusal order introduced a new ground not mentioned in the Examination Report: that TAJPURIYA was the name of an indigenous tribe from Nepal and parts of India, where alcohol is used in rituals. Based on this, the Office held that the mark lacked distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a).

Aggrieved by this decision, Ads Agro challenged the refusal before the Delhi High Court, raising two principal issues: whether the Trade Marks Office could refuse a trademark on a ground not cited in the Examination Report, and whether the association of the mark with a tribal name linked to alcohol rituals justified refusal under Section 9(1)(a).

The Court observed that the Examination Report had raised only the geographical objection. The refusal order, however, relied on a completely new basis—the tribal association—which was never communicated to the applicant. This deprived Ads Agro of the opportunity to respond, violating the principles of natural justice.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the original geographical objection was not addressed in the refusal order. It remained unclear whether the objection was waived or ignored. If not waived, the Office failed to consider the applicant’s detailed reply, which argued that the mark was arbitrary and inherently distinctive, and that even geographical terms could be registrable if used arbitrarily.

The Court emphasized that when an applicant files a detailed reply, the Trade Marks Office must explicitly address the points raised before refusing registration under Section 9(1)(a). The failure to do so constituted a procedural lapse.

On substantive grounds, the Court refrained from making a final determination on the distinctiveness of TAJPURIYA. Instead, it held that the matter warranted fresh examination, considering the applicant’s submissions and the proper legal framework for assessing geographical and tribal names.

Consequently, the Court set aside the refusal order dated 29 January 2024 and remanded the matter to the Registry for re-examination from the hearing stage onward.

This judgment underscores the necessity for the Trade Marks Office to adhere strictly to the grounds stated in Examination Reports and to uphold natural justice by allowing applicants to respond to all objections. It also clarifies the approach to assessing marks involving geographical and tribal names under Section 9(1)(a).

Case Citation: M/s Ads Agro Industries Pvt Ltd v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C A COMM IPD TM 33 of 2024, decided on 3 February 2026 by the Delhi High Court. The full text is accessible at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29356051/.