Absolute and Relative Grounds for Refusal of Trademarks
Absolute and Relative Grounds for Refusal of Trademarks
What is a Trademark?
A trademark is a distinctive sign, symbol, logo, word, or combination thereof that identifies and distinguishes goods or services of one person or company from others.
Trademark Registration
For a trademark to be registered, it must satisfy certain criteria. The law provides grounds on which a trademark application can be refused. These grounds are divided into two categories:
Absolute Grounds for Refusal
Relative Grounds for Refusal
1. Absolute Grounds for Refusal
Absolute grounds relate to the intrinsic nature of the trademark itself. These grounds focus on whether the mark can function as a trademark at all.
Meaning
If a trademark lacks distinctiveness or is deceptive, it cannot be registered irrespective of whether it conflicts with other marks.
These grounds are assessed independently of other trademarks.
Common Absolute Grounds
Lack of distinctiveness: The mark is generic or descriptive, and cannot distinguish the goods/services.
Descriptive marks: Marks that describe the nature, quality, quantity, or intended purpose.
Deceptive or misleading marks: Marks that can deceive consumers about the nature or origin of the goods.
Marks contrary to public policy or morality: Any mark considered offensive or scandalous.
Marks identical or similar to generic names or common terms: Words that are customary in trade.
Case Law:
Tata Sons Ltd. vs. Greenpeace International (2011)
The court refused registration of a mark that was deemed misleading and likely to deceive the public.
Highlighted that deceptive marks are absolutely refused.
Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. vs. Borden Inc. (1990)
The court held that a mark that lacks distinctiveness cannot be registered.
2. Relative Grounds for Refusal
Relative grounds concern the conflict with prior rights of others, such as earlier trademarks or well-known marks.
Meaning
Even if a mark passes absolute grounds, it may be refused if it conflicts with an existing registered trademark or a mark that has prior rights.
This is a question of comparison between the new mark and the existing marks.
Common Relative Grounds
The proposed trademark is identical or confusingly similar to an earlier mark for identical or related goods/services.
The mark is likely to cause confusion or deception among consumers.
The mark may dilute the distinctive character or reputation of a famous or well-known trademark.
Case Law:
Cadbury Ltd. vs. Neeraj Food Products (2007)
The court refused registration of a mark that was confusingly similar to the famous "Cadbury" mark.
Emphasized the need to avoid consumer confusion.
Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta (1963)
The court ruled that even a slight resemblance that causes confusion is sufficient ground for refusal.
Summary Table
| Ground | Focus | When it Applies | Case Law Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute Grounds | Intrinsic nature of the mark | Always; no relation to other marks | Tata Sons Ltd. vs. Greenpeace (2011) |
| Relative Grounds | Conflict with existing marks | When similar marks exist | Cadbury Ltd. vs. Neeraj Food (2007) |
Conclusion
Absolute grounds test whether a trademark can function as a mark in the first place.
Relative grounds test whether the mark conflicts with prior rights of other trademark holders.
Both grounds ensure that trademarks are distinctive, non-deceptive, and do not infringe on others' rights.
Courts carefully examine these grounds to protect consumer interests and uphold fair competition.
RELATED Blog
0 comments