Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trademark Registry Order Refusing “AYU LIFESCIENCE” Registration

The Delhi High Court on 21 August set aside the Trademark Registry's order refusing to register the device mark “AYU LIFESCIENCE”, finding that the Registry could not rely on cited marks without first examining whether they were validly subsisting on the register.

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed an appeal filed by Ayu Lifescience Industries FZE against the Registry's order dated 10 October 2025, which had refused registration under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act on the ground that the applied mark was similar to three cited Class 05 marks, namely the device mark “AYU”, the registered mark “AYU18” and “AYU SHAKTI”, which was under opposition. She held:

“The Registry has...taken the two cited marks as valid marks on the Register of Trade Marks to decline registration of the applied mark, without giving any reason to do so.”

The appellant had pointed out that the “AYU” device mark had remained objected to and unprosecuted since 2020, while “AYU SHAKTI” was under opposition and remained pending. Only “AYU18” was registered. It submitted that “AYU18” was “completely distinguishable” from its mark, which contained the word “LIFESCIENCE” and a distinctive tree device.

The Court agreed with the appellant and found that the Registry had overlooked the status of the cited marks. It termed this “a glaring error in the impugned order.” It also found that the Registry had failed to properly compare the applied mark with “AYU18”.

It noted that the Registry “has not entered into the exercise of comparing the applied mark” based on the differences highlighted by the appellant. The Registry appeared to have been “influenced by the fact that both device marks have commonality of the word AYU, by dissecting the marks, which is against the anti-dissection rule.”

The Bench clarified that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the similarity between the marks. It held that “the trademark application needs to be considered afresh.”

Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeal and directed the Trademark Registry to reconsider the application within three months after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.