Delhi HC refuses to entertain plea against men’s grooming brand proposed trademark with objectionable word

The Delhi High Court has refused to entertain a petition which objected to a men's grooming brand's proposed trademark not tested on animals only on rascals on the ground that it was offensive and hurts religious sentiments of a particular community.

Justice Prateek Jalan said the word rascal' is not so terrible and asked the petitioner as to how the words used in the applied trademark hurt any religion.

The petitioner sought rejection of trademark application for all products bearing words not tested on animals only on rascals under the brand name Ustraa on the ground that the word rascal' was objectionable and uncivilised and it cannot be used to sell, trade or promote a product.

The brand is owned by Happily Unmarried Marketing Pvt Ltd.

The plea claimed that the punchline was more offensive as it has the trade dress with a turbaned pictograph implying men of a particular community.

The judge, however, said per se, I do not find anything objectionable in the trademark .

The high court pulled up the petitioner for filing such a frivolous petition and wasting the judicial time and warned of imposing hefty costs.

Cost should be imposed on such a petition. It is absolutely a frivolous petition and waste of time, it said.

Stick yourself to the trademark and not to the trade dress or else you will invite cost, I am making it very clear. How the words they have applied for trademark hurts any religion? Which religious sentiments it hurts? Which religion does these words hurt de-hors the trade dress, the judge said.

The court said if the objection was to the trade dress, the petitioner shall file the plea before an appropriate forum.

After some arguments, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the plea with a liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

During the hearing, the petitioner's lawyer said he was opposing the trademark and the objection was already long pending before the Trademark Registry and as it was not open for objections for third parties now, the only remedy left was to approach the high court.

The counsel said the use of the word rascal' was against the public policy and here the word implied that the users were rascals'.