{"id":27747,"date":"2026-07-16T05:49:55","date_gmt":"2026-07-16T05:49:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=27747"},"modified":"2026-07-16T06:01:15","modified_gmt":"2026-07-16T06:01:15","slug":"columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This judgement addresses important questions on the protection of well-known trademarks in India, particularly when an established mark faces registration of a similar name for unrelated goods. The case highlights how courts balance exclusive rights of famous brands against new applications in different classes. It holds relevance for businesses building global brands, trademark practitioners handling oppositions, and the Registrar of Trade Marks in evaluating reputation-based claims. The ruling clarifies procedural aspects under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and strengthens safeguards against potential dilution of reputed marks.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Case_Timeline\" >Case Timeline<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Key_Legal_Principles\" >Key Legal Principles<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#Case_Summary\" >Case Summary<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., a major American film studio, owns the GHOSTBUSTERS mark associated with its successful movie franchise starting in 1984. The mark has been used extensively through films, sequels, merchandise, and streaming in India since 1985, with registrations in Classes 9, 41, 25, and 28.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In 2020, another party applied to register GHOST BUSTER in Class 05 for pharmaceutical and related goods on a proposed-to-use basis. The mark was advertised, and Columbia Pictures filed an opposition citing similarity, bad-faith adoption, and its own mark&#8217;s well-known status. After evidence and hearings, the Registrar rejected the opposition in April 2025, primarily on grounds of dissimilar goods and classes, accepting the applicant&#8217;s explanation for adopting the mark based on product function in chromatography.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved, Columbia Pictures filed an appeal before the High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-case-timeline\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Timeline\"><\/span>Case Timeline<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Year\/Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1984<\/td><td>The GHOSTBUSTERS movie franchise launched.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1985<\/td><td>Mark is extensively used in India through films, merchandise, and entertainment services.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2020<\/td><td>Application filed for GHOST BUSTER in Class 05 on a proposed-to-use basis.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>April 2025<\/td><td>The registrar rejected Columbia Pictures&#8217; opposition.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2025<\/td><td>Appeal filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>6 July 2026<\/td><td>The Delhi High Court delivered its judgement.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_the_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The core issues were whether the Registrar properly examined the Appellant&#8217;s claim that GHOSTBUSTERS qualified for protection as a well-known mark under Section 11(2), allowing opposition even for dissimilar goods, and whether the adoption of GHOST BUSTER was dishonest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Appellant argued that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The marks were nearly identical.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Prior knowledge existed due to the film&#8217;s fame.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evidence of reputation was ignored.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent defended the order by stressing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Differences in goods and trade channels.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The need for a formal, well-known declaration under Rule 124 before claiming cross-class protection.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court carefully interpreted Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which protects earlier well-known trademarks against similar marks for dissimilar goods if registration would take unfair advantage or harm the earlier mark&#8217;s distinctive character or repute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It explained that Explanation (b) to Section 11 refers to marks &#8220;entitled to protection&#8221; as well-known, not requiring prior formal declaration. Factors under Sections 11(6) and 11(7), such as duration of use, promotion, recognition among the public, and enforcement records, guide this determination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court noted the Registrar completely overlooked this ground despite detailed evidence of the film&#8217;s success, Indian releases, merchandise sales, media coverage, and international enforcement, including a successful US opposition against a related entity. It distinguished cases like <em>Nandhini Deluxe<\/em>, finding them inapplicable due to the coined and highly distinctive nature of GHOSTBUSTERS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Several precedents were discussed, including judgements from the Madras High Court in <em>Lego Juris A\/S v. Gurumukh Singh<\/em> and <em>Godfrey Philips India Limited v. Khoday India Limited<\/em>, which supported evaluating well-known status during opposition without prior declaration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also referenced Delhi High Court decisions on bad faith adoption, underscoring that prior knowledge and failure to explain the choice of mark can indicate mala fide intent. Rule 43 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, was read in harmony to reinforce that opposition can allege well-known status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The analysis emphasised that Section 11(2) serves to prevent dilution and unfair advantage, aligning with India&#8217;s TRIPS obligations. The Registrar&#8217;s focus solely on class dissimilarity without addressing reputation evidence amounted to a material error, requiring fresh adjudication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-legal-principles\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Section 11(2) protects well-known trademarks even against registration for dissimilar goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A prior declaration under Rule 124 is not essential to claim protection under Section 11(2).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Evidence of reputation can be evaluated during opposition proceedings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ignoring evidence of reputation constitutes a material error.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Protection extends to preventing trademark dilution and unfair advantage.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Registrar&#8217;s order rejecting the opposition, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the judgement, directing proper evaluation of the well-known status claim and other grounds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement clarifies that a formal declaration under Rule 124 is not a mandatory precondition for invoking Section 11(2) protection in opposition proceedings. Proprietors of reputed marks can establish well-known status through evidence during opposition, enabling cross-class protection where similarity and risk of unfair advantage exist. This strengthens enforcement for famous brands and guides the Registrar to comprehensively address reputation claims, likely influencing future oppositions involving global entertainment marks and dissimilar goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-summary\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Summary\"><\/span>Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td>Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. vs. Registrar of Trade Marks &amp; Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgement\/Order<\/th><td>6th July, 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 44\/2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026: DHC: 5378<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/th><td>Ms Justice Jyoti Singh<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Written By<\/th><td>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/examining-the-ai-image-maze-who-owns-your-digital-double\/\">Examining the AI Image Maze: Who Owns Your Digital Double?<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/ivy-entertainment-vs-hr-pictures-film-rights-case-delhi-high-court\/\">Timely delivery clauses in film assignment agreements, when deemed essential, must be strictly enforced<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/raman-kwatra-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-rectification\/\">Raman Kwatra v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Bombay High Court on Well-Known Trademark Rectification &amp; Forum Conveniens<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/shaadi-com-well-known-trademark-domain-name-dispute\/\">Shaadi.com as a Well-Known Trademark: Analysing the Bombay High Court\u2019s approach to Domain Name Infringement<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/the-trademarks-act-1999-essential-provisions-and-comprehensive-overview\/\">The Trademarks Act, 1999: Essential Provisions and Comprehensive Overview<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction This judgement addresses important questions on the protection of well-known trademarks in India, particularly when an established mark faces registration of a similar name for unrelated goods. The case highlights how courts balance exclusive rights of famous brands against new applications in different classes. It holds relevance for businesses building global brands, trademark practitioners<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[5873],"tags":[5969],"class_list":["post-27747","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-trademark-law","tag-trademark-laws"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.9 (Yoast SEO v28.0) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Delhi High Court explains well-known trademark protection, Section 11(2), Rule 124 and cross-class rights in the GHOSTBUSTERS trademark case.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Delhi High Court explains well-known trademark protection, Section 11(2), Rule 124 and cross-class rights in the GHOSTBUSTERS trademark case.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-16T05:49:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-16T06:01:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T05:49:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-16T06:01:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":949,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/\",\"name\":\"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-16T05:49:55+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-16T06:01:15+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Delhi High Court explains well-known trademark protection, Section 11(2), Rule 124 and cross-class rights in the GHOSTBUSTERS trademark case.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > Delhi High Court Rules on GHOSTBUSTERS Trademark: Well-Known Marks Protected Even for Dissimilar Goods\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Delhi High Court explains well-known trademark protection, Section 11(2), Rule 124 and cross-class rights in the GHOSTBUSTERS trademark case.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes","og_description":"The Delhi High Court explains well-known trademark protection, Section 11(2), Rule 124 and cross-class rights in the GHOSTBUSTERS trademark case.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-16T05:49:55+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-16T06:01:15+00:00","author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes","datePublished":"2026-07-16T05:49:55+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-16T06:01:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/"},"wordCount":949,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/","name":"Columbia Pictures vs Registrar of Trade Marks (2026): Delhi High Court Clarifies Well-Known Trademark Protection Across Different Classes - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-16T05:49:55+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-16T06:01:15+00:00","description":"The Delhi High Court explains well-known trademark protection, Section 11(2), Rule 124 and cross-class rights in the GHOSTBUSTERS trademark case.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/columbia-pictures-vs-registrar-trade-marks-2026-well-known-trademark-section-11-2-delhi-high-court\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > Delhi High Court Rules on GHOSTBUSTERS Trademark: Well-Known Marks Protected Even for Dissimilar Goods"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27747","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27747"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27747\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28010,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27747\/revisions\/28010"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27747"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27747"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27747"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}