Suggestive Trademarks and its protection

Introduction: Delhi High Court Allows Registration of “One For All”

Delhi High Court has allowed the registration of the mark “One For All” for educational books and related publications. The decision highlights how courts should evaluate everyday suggestive marks when they are used as trademarks. Rather than treating common words as automatically unprotectable, the court examined whether the suggestive marks truly describes the product or merely suggests an idea in the minds of buyers. This judgment is particularly important for businesses in the education sector, where creative slogans help publishers stand out in a crowded market. It reassures companies that a well-chosen tagline can function as a source identifier even if the words themselves are simple and familiar.

Factual Background

Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited, a well-known publisher of educational materials, started using the expression “One For All” for its books and academic resources from August 2020. The company chose the phrase to convey that its publications serve as a complete solution for students preparing for various school boards and competitive examinations.

In October 2020, Oswaal filed an application to register “One For All” as a trademark in Class 16, which covers printed books and paper goods. The company believed the mark would help customers instantly recognise its products and distinguish them from those of other publishers.

Key Facts at a Glance

Procedural Background

The Trade Marks Registry examined the application and refused registration, stating that the mark lacked distinctiveness and was a common phrase that anyone should be free to use.

Oswaal challenged this refusal before the Delhi High Court through a statutory appeal. A single judge heard the matter and upheld the refusal, observing that “One For All” was a laudatory expression suggesting the books were a universal solution and that the company had not proved the mark had acquired a special meaning among buyers.

Feeling aggrieved, Oswaal filed an intra-court appeal before a division bench of the High Court. After hearing detailed arguments from senior counsel, the division bench delivered its judgment on 10 February 2026.

Procedural Journey Summary

• Application filed before Trade Marks Registry.
• Registration refused on grounds of lack of distinctiveness.
• Statutory appeal before Single Judge — refusal upheld.
• Intra-court appeal before Division Bench.
• Judgment delivered on 10 February 2026 allowing the appeal.

Reasoning and Decision of Court

The division bench carefully studied the mark in the specific context of educational books. The judges noted that “One For All” does not immediately tell a buyer anything about the physical nature, quality, or content of a book. A book is a tangible printed item, and the phrase simply suggests broad coverage or completeness rather than describing any particular feature of the book itself. The court observed that the connection between the mark and the goods is not direct; it requires a moment of thought. Therefore, the mark is suggestive rather than descriptive.

The bench respectfully differed from the single judge’s view that the phrase was laudatory and descriptive in the education field. It emphasised that the test is not whether the words are common in English but whether they describe the goods in question. Since no similar mark existed on the register in the relevant class and the Registry itself had raised no objection about other traders using the same expression, the court found no reason to deny protection.

The judges also clarified that the mark need not be proved to have acquired secondary meaning because it already possessed enough distinctiveness on its own in the context of books.

Ultimately, the division bench set aside both the Registrar’s order and the single judge’s judgment. It restored the trademark application to its original position and directed the Registry to proceed with that stage. The appeal was allowed without any order on costs.

Core Legal Reasoning

• The phrase does not directly describe the goods.
• It suggests an idea rather than stating a characteristic.
• The connection between mark and product requires mental effort.
• No evidence of widespread third-party use in the same class.
• Secondary meaning not required due to inherent distinctiveness.

Point of Law Settled in the Case

This judgment settles an important principle: when deciding whether a common phrase or slogan can be registered as a trademark, courts must assess it in relation to the specific goods or services and not in isolation. A phrase that appears ordinary may still be protectable if it does not directly describe the character or quality of the product and only suggests an idea.

The ruling reinforces that the imagination test remains key — if linking the mark to the goods requires even a slight mental effort, the mark is suggestive and eligible for registration. It also confirms that slogans and taglines can function as independent source identifiers in today’s market, especially in creative industries like publishing.

Businesses can now take greater comfort that thoughtful, non-descriptive slogans will receive trademark protection without needing to prove long years of exclusive use.

Case Details