Synopsis

The dispute arose between two applicants for the trademark “20-20” in Class 30. Respondent No. 2 filed its application on 27.09.2007 on a “proposed to be used” basis, while the appellant filed its application on 04.10.2007 also on a “proposed to be used” basis. Both parties had not commenced use prior to filing. The appellant subsequently began using the mark in 2008–09 and obtained registration in 2017. The respondent’s application, after prolonged litigation, was published and opposed by the appellant. The Registrar allowed the respondent’s registration on the ground that it was the senior adopter (first to file). The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Section 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the date of application determines priority where both applications are filed on a “proposed to be used” basis, and subsequent use by the junior adopter cannot displace the senior adopter’s right to registration.Court: High Court of Delhi

Coram: Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Date: March 10, 2026
Citation: 2026:DHC:1967 (as per internal reference)
Core Law: Trade Marks Act, 1999 – Sections 9, 11, 18, 34, and principles of priority, proposed use, and passing off.

2. Legal Framework

Trade Marks Act, 1999:
Section 18: Application for registration – any person claiming to be proprietor of a trade mark used or proposed to be used may apply; priority is determined by the date of application.
Section 9: Absolute grounds for refusal (distinctiveness).
Section 11: Relative grounds for refusal – likelihood of confusion with an earlier trade mark.
Section 34: Saving for vested rights – prior user’s rights in a passing off action.
Precedents:
Mohan Goldwater Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. Khoday Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (Madras High Court, 1977) – where both applications are on

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.