Bombay High Court Sets Aside Rejection Of Olympic Committee's 'Faster, Higher, Stronger-Together' Trademark

The Bombay High Court has set aside the Registrar of Trade Marks' rejection of the International Olympic Committee's application to register “Faster, Higher, Stronger-Together” and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by another officer.

Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan was hearing a petition filed by the International Olympic Committee (Comite International Olympique), challenging the rejection of its application to register the phrase, which the committee adopted as a further improvisation and extension of the English translation of the Olympic motto “Citius, Altius, Fortius.”

The court found the rejection order unsustainable, holding that it showed an “evident lack of reasons and complete non-application of mind.”

The Registrar had claimed that the material on record was considered. However, the order did not indicate how that material was considered or what weight was given to the committee's submissions and other material.

The rejection order also noted that the trademark application was filed on a “proposed to be used” basis without relevant documents establishing the mark or corroborative evidence supporting the application. The court found this observation inaccurate.

It noted that the committee's governing body had passed a resolution adopting the words “Faster, Higher, Stronger-Together”. The committee had also placed before the registrar evidence of registrations of the mark in various countries. The court observed that none of those registrations had been considered.

The court further took issue with how the Registrar dealt with the examination report. The order merely stated that the objections in the report “cannot be waived”, without explaining why the committee's submissions addressing those objections were “unworthy of acceptance.”

The petitioner's documents and submissions encompassed more than 250 pages, including case law, legal propositions and factual material such as evidence of use and international registrations. The record also included additional documents and written submissions filed in 2023 and 2024.

Describing the rejection as an “arbitrary and summary rejection of the trade mark application, which no reasonable person could have passed”, the court set aside the Registrar's order.

The petition was allowed and the matter remanded to the Registrar of Trade Marks. The court directed that “some other responsible Officer” examine the file and deal with the committee's contentions afresh, without being influenced by what had transpired in the earlier proceedings.

The court also clarified that, given the passage of time, the committee would be at liberty to make supplemental submissions regarding further international use or protection afforded to the word mark.