Bombay High Court Rejects Baskin Robbins Licensee Graviss Foods' 'ICE CREAM ROCKS' Trademark Bid

The Bombay High Court on 16 September dismissed petitions filed by Graviss Foods, the Indian licensee of Baskin Robbins, challenging the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of its applications to register “ICE CREAM ROCKS”.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan observed that the phrase “ICE CREAM ROCKS” is too generic and descriptive to acquire distinctive character warranting trademark protection. The Bench observed:

“Merely adding 'ROCKS' to 'ICE CREAM' does not turn the needle in favour of making the Subject Mark capable of acquiring a distinctive character enabling grant of a monopoly to the Petitioner.”

Graviss Foods submitted that it operates India's largest ice-cream store chain, with over 800 parlours across 230 cities under the Baskin Robbins brand.

In January 2024, it applied to register “ICE CREAM ROCKS” for its bite-sized, choco-dipped ice cream treats, sold in flavours including Mississippi Mud and Caramel Biscuit, as well as related marketing and retail services.

The Registrar rejected both applications in December 2025, holding that the mark lacked distinctive character, merely described the goods and was also similar to the existing registered mark “Ice Cream Works”, owned by Prince Creamery.

Graviss Foods challenged the orders before the High Court, arguing that the Registrar had merely reproduced the statutory language without explaining what the mark described. It contended that the orders were bare conclusions presented as reasoning.

The High Court agreed that the Registrar's orders were thinly reasoned and “come close to being vulnerable on this count.” However, it held that its appellate powers were as wide as those of the Registrar and proceeded to examine the applications on merits instead of remanding the matter.

It noted that Graviss markets the product as “BR Ice Cream Rocks”, with the Baskin Robbins prefix distinguishing it from competing products, whereas the applications sought registration of “ICE CREAM ROCKS” by itself.

The Bench also observed that, taken as a whole, the phrase did not acquire distinctive character merely because “ROCKS” was added to “ICE CREAM”. The expression remained descriptive of the product's shape or could be understood as a vague claim about its quality. It noted that Graviss had used the phrase for only seven months before filing the applications. It found this period insufficient to establish that the mark had become distinctively associated with Graviss in the public mind.

Having found the mark unregistrable on this ground, the Bench declined to examine whether “ICE CREAM ROCKS” was also similar to “Ice Cream Works”, holding that the issue had become academic.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both petitions and left the Registrar's orders undisturbed. It also flagged formatting issues in Registry orders and asked the Registrar's counsel to raise the matter with the Registry's leadership.