Delhi High Court Sets Aside Refusal Of Jindal Steel's 'JSP' Trademark, Orders Fresh Consideration

The Delhi High Court has partially allowed an appeal filed by Jindal Steel Limited against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing registration of the trademark “JSP,” holding that the decision was a “non-speaking order” passed without considering the arguments and material placed on record.

In a judgment delivered on February 17, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the Registrar had failed to consider several issues raised by the company, including its reliance on Sections 34 and 55 of the Trade Marks Act.

“Time and again, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have insisted that even the quasi-judicial authorities must consider all relevant points and material placed before them and apply their minds before taking a decision. If the relevant material is not taken into consideration, in a given case it may lead to an unjust decision against one party and therefore, it is imperative that a reasoned and speaking order is passed indicating cogent reasons which have weighed with the authority to come to a certain decision,” the Court said.

The court partially allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration of the application, directing that it be considered along with a pending rectification application concerning the cited mark. The registrar was also directed to give advance intimation of the hearing to all concerned parties.

Jindal Steel Limited had applied for registration of the mark “JSP” in Class 06 for goods including steel slabs, ingots, billets, mild steel castings, wire rods, iron beams, steel beams, and TMT re-bars.

The application was refused after an objection was raised under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act on the ground that the applied mark was identical with or similar to a cited “JSP” device mark registered in favour of Nitin Mehta trading as Shweta Overseas.

Before the Court, the company argued that “JSP” and “JSPL” are acronyms for Jindal Steel & Power and that the mark “JSP” acts as a source identifier for goods manufactured by the company.

It relied on Section 55 of the Trade Marks Act to contend that use of the registered “JSPL” marks should be accepted as equivalent to use of “JSP.”

The company also asserted prior use of the related “JSPL” mark since 1998, while the cited mark claimed user rights from January 1, 2013.

The company also pointed out that it had already filed a rectification petition challenging the validity of the cited registration. In its view, the Registrar should have either awaited the outcome of that proceeding or considered the rectification petition and the present application together.

On behalf of the Registrar, it was argued that the applied mark “JSP” was phonetically identical to the cited device mark. Since both marks covered goods falling in Class 06, the Registrar maintained that their use was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

The Registrar also emphasised that the company's application, filed in 2022, was on a “proposed to be used” basis. By contrast, the cited mark claimed user rights dating back to January 1, 2013, and therefore, according to the Registrar, the company could not assert superior rights over the earlier mark.