Delhi High Court Dismisses Parle's Appeal Against Rival Biscuit Maker's '20-20' Trademark Registration

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed Parle Products Pvt. Ltd.'s challenge to the registration of the trademark "20-20" in favour of a rival biscuit manufacturer.

It held that, in the present registration dispute, Parle's subsequent commercial use of the mark could not defeat the rival company's earlier trademark application.

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora observed that the rival company's non-use of the mark for several years was "attributable to delays of the Trademark Registry in processing the application" and "cannot be held to the prejudice of the respondent no.2, who is admittedly the prior adopter of the impugned mark."

The bench upheld a single judge's decision dismissing Parle's challenge to the Registrar of Trade Marks' order rejecting its opposition to the rival biscuit manufacturer's application to register the trademark "20-20."

Both companies had applied to register the mark in Class 30 on a "proposed to be used" basis. The rival company's application was filed on September 27, 2007. Parle filed its application on October 4, 2007.

Parle's application was eventually registered. The rival company's application remained pending for years because of delays at the Trade Marks Registry. After the Intellectual Property Appellate Board set aside the Registry's refusal in 2019, the application was advertised for opposition in 2020. Parle opposed the application, but the registrar rejected its opposition in April 2025.

Before the court, Parle argued that its commercial use of the "20-20" mark should prevail over the rival company's earlier application. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd., it contended that prior commercial use should override an earlier application filed on a "proposed to be used" basis.

The bench rejected the contention. It agreed with the single judge that Neon Laboratories arose from a passing off dispute and did not govern the present registration dispute. It further held that the parties' rights had to be determined with reference to the earlier application. Parle's subsequent commercial use could not defeat the earlier applicant's claim to registration.

The court also agreed that Parle had approbated and reprobated. While seeking registration of its own mark, it had told the Registrar that its mark was "visually, phonetically, conceptually different" from the cited conflicting marks, including the rival company's mark. It later claimed that the marks were deceptively similar while opposing the rival company's application.

Finding no error in the single judge's reasoning, the bench held that Parle could not "usurp the registration of the respondent no.2." It dismissed the appeal along with the pending applications.