Delhi High Court Quashes Refusal of 'BIG INDIA' Trademark Registration, Orders Fresh Review

The Delhi High Court has set aside an order refusing registration of the word mark "BIG INDIA", holding that the Trade Marks Registry failed to consider several submissions made by the firm seeking registration and passed an unreasoned order.

Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated May 22, directed the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks to reconsider the application within four months after granting Purpos Planet an opportunity of hearing.

“This methodology of carrying out the examination of a trademark for registration not only violates the principles of natural justice but also defeats the purpose and objective of calling for response to Examination Reports and giving an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, in my view, the matter deserves to be remanded for fresh consideration,” the court held.

Purpos Planet, a partnership firm that stated it had been operating in the beauty, fashion and fragrances sector for more than 27 years, applied on November 18, 2021, for registration of the word mark "BIG INDIA" in Class 05 on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

The application covered goods including pharmaceuticals, medical and veterinary preparations, dietary supplements, disinfectants, fungicides and herbicides.

In December 2021, the Trade Marks Registry issued an examination report objecting to the application on the ground that the mark was a geographical name and non-distinctive, making it incapable of distinguishing one person's goods from those of another.

Purpos Planet filed a detailed reply in January 2022, disputing the objection raised in the examination report.

A hearing followed, but the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks ultimately rejected the application through an order dated May 27, 2025. The order held that "BIG INDIA" was common and non-distinctive, and that granting exclusive rights over the words would unfairly restrict others from using them.

Challenging the decision before the High Court, Purpos Planet contended that the refusal order was arbitrary and reflected non-application of mind.

The firm contended that the mark had been examined by separating the words "BIG" and "INDIA" rather than considering the expression as a whole. It also relied on registrations granted to trademarks incorporating the word "India" and pointed out that it had obtained registrations for the word mark "BIG INDIA" in other classes, subject to disclaimers relating to exclusive use of the word "India".

Purpos Planet further argued that the mark should be assessed in relation to the goods for which registration was sought and maintained that "BIG INDIA" was arbitrary in relation to the Class 05 goods covered by the application.

The firm also stated that it did not seek exclusive rights over the word "India" separately and was seeking registration of the mark as a whole with a disclaimer.

The Court noted that there was no dispute that the words "BIG" and "INDIA", when taken separately, were generic, common and non-distinctive. However, it observed that several submissions raised by Purpos Planet in response to the examination report had not been addressed in the refusal order.

“Court finds from a reading of the impugned order that none of these points, which were crucial and should have been taken into consideration while examining the applied mark, have been considered by the Respondent and in fact, the impugned order does not even refer to these submissions,” Justice Singh observed.

The Court recorded that Purpos Planet had argued that the mark ought to be examined as a whole and that its distinctiveness had to be assessed in relation to the goods for which registration was sought.

It also noted the firm's submission that registrations had already been granted for the same word mark in other classes and that trademarks incorporating the word "India" had been registered with disclaimers regarding exclusive use of the geographical term.

According to the Court, none of these submissions found any discussion in the refusal order. It observed that an order adjudicating rights and contentions must be reasoned and indicate why the points raised by a party did not find favour with the decision-maker.

The Court consequently quashed the refusal order dated May 27, 2025 and directed the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks to reconsider the application after taking into account all submissions advanced by Purpose Planet and after granting it an opportunity of hearing.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the trademark's registrability.