LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Lal Babu Priyadarshi v. Amritpal Singh

Civil Appeal · Neutral citation not assigned (Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006)Decided 27 Oct 2015
Civil Appeal No. 2138 of 2006
Justice Ranjan Gogoi · Justice R.K. Agrawal

Background

Lal Babu Priyadarshi, trading as M/s Om Perfumery in Patna, applied to register "RAMAYAN" (with a crown device) as a trade mark for incense sticks and perfumery products. Amritpal Singh, a former dealer of the appellant's products who traded as M/s Badshah Industries, opposed the registration, arguing that the name of a religious book could not be monopolised by one trader. The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks initially rejected the opposition and allowed registration, but the Intellectual Property Appellate Board reversed this and set the registration aside. Priyadarshi then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the name of a holy or religious book, such as the Ramayan, Quran, Bible or Guru Granth Sahib, cannot be appropriated by any individual as a trade mark, since Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act bars marks that are not capable of distinguishing one trader's goods because the name is already common to many. The Court also found that the appellant had failed to show he had built up an exclusive reputation in the "RAMAYAN" mark, noting that more than 20 other traders used the same word for similar goods across the country. On the competing artistic/label designs, the Court found the two marks were visually near-identical and likely to confuse ordinary buyers, and that the respondent had in fact used his artistic label earlier in time than the appellant's claimed first use. On these findings, the Court upheld the Appellate Board's order and dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Lesson Learnt

The name of a religious text or scripture cannot be registered as an exclusive trade mark by any one trader: such names are treated as belonging to the public at large, not to any individual business, and a trader must also independently prove genuine prior and exclusive use before claiming trade mark rights over a common word or design.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Intellectual Property Law

Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Japan Tobacco Inc. & Anr. vs. The Central Warehouse & Anr.

The Court held that the petitioners had not established that they were the "first owner" of the original artistic work, which was a precondition for expunging the impugned registration. Because that point was not established, the Court considered the argument about alleged violation of Section 45(1) of the Act and Rule 70 of the Copyright Rules, 2013 to be academic and unpersuasive. It also held that the parties' authorities relied on were not relevant to this analysis. The petition was dismissed, with an express clarification that the observations about the earlier suit (CS(COMM) 644/2018) do not decide the merits of that suit.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

I.S.D.S. Private Limited v. M/s Khemka Food Products Pvt. Ltd.

This is a referral order, not a final judgment. The Court found a conflict between two of its earlier decisions, Kandla Export Corporation v. OCI Corporation and Jaycee Housing v. Registrar, Orissa High Court, on this question. It referred the matter to a larger bench and stayed the underlying commercial suit until the reference is decided.

Decided 21 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Division Bench held that publication of a trademark under the Trade Marks Act only happens after an application is formally "accepted," and this application had not yet reached that stage. It agreed with the Single Judge's approach of sending the matter back to the trademark authorities for fresh, correct examination rather than the High Court deciding registrability itself, especially since the Registry was already re-examining the application per the earlier order. Finding no legal error, the appeal was dismissed.

Decided 15 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

ITC Limited vs. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs & Ors. and connected matters

The High Court held that although the Controller's order deciding the two interlocutory petitions was framed somewhat confusingly, there was no real violation of fair procedure: ITC had been given adequate opportunities to respond at every stage, and the Patentee's later written submissions did not introduce anything genuinely new or unfair. The writ petition was dismissed alongside the connected appeal, with the Court finding no legal infirmity in how the patent opposition process was conducted.

Decided 10 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawDelhi High Court

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Kwick Living (I) Private Limited

The Division Bench found that hoardings for the disputed advertising campaign had been put up in Delhi before the lawsuit was filed, and that Kwick Living itself had a GST-registered principal place of business in Delhi's Naraina Industrial Area and admitted selling its products there. On this basis, the Court held that Delhi's territorial jurisdiction was clearly established under Section 20(a) and 20(c) of the Civil Procedure Code. It allowed HUL to formally amend its plaint to record these two facts and sent the case back to the Single Judge to decide the interim injunction application on its merits, directing an expedited hearing.

Decided 2 Sept 2026Read case
Intellectual Property LawSupreme Court of India

Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that once the plaintiff's own affidavit asserted trademark and trade-dress infringement and claimed prior use of the brand, the defendant was entitled to test that claim by asking when the mark had actually been used - regardless of whether the defendant's written statement was formally on record. The Court reversed the High Court's order and directed that the trial proceed with the plaintiff recalled to answer the question, while clarifying it expressed no view on the merits of the underlying dispute.

Decided 7 Aug 2026Read case