The present appeal has been filed by Goodview Fashion Private Limited (“Appellant”) against an order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Respondent”) refusing registration of the Appellant’s application for the Pi logo on the ground on non-distinctiveness.
It was the Appellant’s case that the impugned order of the Respondent is arbitrary and perverse as it is based on an unsubstantiated assumption that the mark Pi logo is a common surname/personal name. The Appellant submitted that any finding on ‘non-distinctiveness’ needs to be preceded by specific reference to other uses of the same mark by third parties. The Appellant further submitted that the Pi logo is a mere variation of its existing registered mark Tarun Tahiliani logo and adopted by the Appellant in an honest and bona fide manner.
The court was of the view that a finding on non-distinctiveness shall fall into either of the two (2) categories, i.e., (i) the mark inherently is incapable of being used to distinguish the goods/services in relation to which it is used, and (ii) the mark is commonly used in relation to such goods/services and is incapable of acting as a source identifier.
The court noted that, in the Respondent’s order, there is no reference to any such other mark which is similar to the Appellant’s Pi logo. Further, the Pi logo is clearly distinctive as it is a creative depiction of the mathematical symbol ‘Pi’ and also represents the Appellant’s brand/label ‘Tarun Tahiliani’. In light of the same, the court held that the Respondent’s observation in the impugned order, that the Pi logo is devoid of any distinctive character, is misplaced. Accordingly, the court set aside the Respondent’s order and directed that the Appellant’s application for the Pi logo shall proceed to advertisement.