Pm Franchise Brands, Llc v. Registrar Of Trade Marks

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 53/2022

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging the rejection of a trademark application, PRETZELMAKER. While the court found that the word mark was problematic under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to descriptiveness and similarity, it recognized the distinctiveness of the accompanying logo. Consequently, the court allowed the Appellant to proceed with registration by deleting the descriptive word 'PRETZELMAKER' from the application.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 53/2022
Judge(s)
Prathiba M. Singh

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Pm Franchise Brands, Llc vs Registrar Of Trade Marks is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkCOMAPL-6617-2025 with APP-66-2012-FC

UTO Nederland B.V.vsTilaknagar Industries Ltd.

The Bombay High Court addressed complex trademark disputes involving UTO Nederland B.V. and Tilaknagar Industries Ltd., concerning the use of marks 'MANSION HOUSE' and 'SAVOY CLUB'. The court upheld an earlier order dismissing UTO’s attempt to stop passing off, while simultaneously setting aside interim orders that had allowed certain product introductions by Tilaknagar. Crucially, the judgment mandates maintaining the current status quo regarding these marks until the main suit is finally decided, emphasizing the need for expedited trial proceedings.

trademarkCS(COMM) 231/2025

Dominos Ip Holder Llc & Anr.vsM/S Dominic Pizza & Ors.

Dominos Ip Holder LLC successfully secured an interim injunction against M/S Dominic Pizza & Ors. in the Delhi High Court. The court recognized that the defendant's use of names like 'Dominic Pizza' and 'Domindo Pizza' was highly likely to cause confusion, deception, and passing off with the globally renowned Domino's brand. This preliminary order provides immediate protection for the plaintiff's trademarks while the main suit proceeds.

trademarkCS(COMM) 581/2023

Royal Challengers Sports Private LimitedvsSun Pictures A Division Of Sun Tv Network Ltd.

The Delhi High Court settled a trademark infringement suit filed by Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited against Sun Pictures. The dispute centered on the use of the RCB team jersey in a derogatory manner within the film 'Jailer.' Through mutual agreement, the court decreed that the defendants must digitally alter all depictions of the RCB jersey and sponsor branding to ensure it is not identifiable before further release, effectively resolving the brand dilution concerns.

trademarkIPDTMA/2/2024

M/S. Chandras Chemical Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.vsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks And Ors

The Calcutta High Court issued a directive in the matter concerning the registration of the mark "DENSEAL (Gom.Dev)". Noting that the Registrar of Trade Marks had failed to transmit the original case record despite previous court directions, the Court granted a final opportunity. The Registrar was ordered to submit the complete record by August 19, 2024, with a warning that failure to comply would result in mandatory appearance before the Court on August 27, 2024.

trademarkCM 160/2025 (W.P.(C)-IPD 15/2024)

Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P LtdvsUnion Of India & Ors.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Ms Jagat Agro Commodities P Ltd, directing the respondents (Union of India) to renew and restore its registered trademark 'JAGAT(DEVICE)'. The court found that the mandatory statutory notice (Form O-3) regarding the approaching expiry was not properly issued or served on the petitioner, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice. This decision emphasizes that a trademark proprietor should not be penalized for procedural lapses by the Registry.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call