Delhi High Court Allows Oswaal Books To Register 'ONE FOR ALL' As Trademark

The Delhi High Court on 10 February cleared the way for Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Ltd. to register “ONE FOR ALL” as their trademark, observing that the phrase is a protectable suggestive mark rather than a merely descriptive slogan.

The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed:

“We find that the applied mark “ONE FOR ALL” does not evoke a connect, in the mind, between the mark and books. The mark has no relation with books and can be used in any situation to communicate broad coverage or universality.”

The case reached the Division Bench after the Registrar of Trade Marks and a Single Judge of the High Court previously refused the application for the mark in Class 16. Earlier, it was held that the phrase was a common, laudatory expression describing the books as a “one-stop solution,” making it “devoid of distinctive character” under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.

In its appeal, Oswaal Books, a publisher of educational materials, contended that the mark was inherently distinctive and did not describe the “kind, quality, or characteristics” of the books. The company also submitted that the Registrar had raised no objections regarding similar existing marks on the register.

The Bench disagreed with the previous findings of descriptiveness. It clarified:

“ONE FOR ALL” does not directly and unequivocally describe books. The applied mark is, at the highest, suggestive in nature. Therefore, satisfies the statutory requirement and is capable of registration.”

The Court further observed that in a digitised marketplace, slogans and taglines frequently perform a “source-identifying function” and are capable of being represented graphically as trademarks.

It noted that the Respondent had failed to show any evidence of “commercial use of any mark either identical or deceptively similar” to the applied mark in Class 16 and that no objections were raised under Section 11 of the Act, which prevents registration of conflicting marks.

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the orders of both the Single Judge and the Registrar of Trade Marks and restored the trademark application to its original position. It directed the Registry to proceed with the registration process.