{"id":28091,"date":"2026-07-18T09:46:02","date_gmt":"2026-07-18T09:46:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=28091"},"modified":"2026-07-18T09:51:25","modified_gmt":"2026-07-18T09:51:25","slug":"pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/","title":{"rendered":"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Bombay High Court ANAAR Word Mark Ruling: Section 20(1) Pre-Advertisement Order<\/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-1'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#Kleo_Consumer_Brands_Private_Limited_v_Jeevan_Kumar_Senior_Examiner_of_Trade_Marks_and_Anr\" >Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v. Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-2' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/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\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/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\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#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-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><\/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\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#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\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<h1 id=\"h-kleo-consumer-brands-private-limited-v-jeevan-kumar-senior-examiner-of-trade-marks-and-anr\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Kleo_Consumer_Brands_Private_Limited_v_Jeevan_Kumar_Senior_Examiner_of_Trade_Marks_and_Anr\"><\/span>Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v. Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>High Court of Judicature at Bombay | Judgement Date: July 3, 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:902<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Field<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td>Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v. Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgement<\/th><td>July 3, 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>Commercial Miscellaneous Petition No. 39 of 2025<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026: BHC: 902<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Judicature at Bombay<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge<\/th><td>Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.<\/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<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\">The registration of a word mark forms the bedrock of brand protection, granting the owner exclusive statutory rights over the linguistic identity of a product. However, trademark registries frequently reject word marks while concurrently allowing stylized device marks containing the exact same word. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed this regulatory discrepancy in a significant stastylisedppeal concerning the trademark &#8220;ANAAR&#8221;. The ruling elucidates the proper invocation of statutory discretion regarding the advertisement of trademark applications before absolute rejection, striking a balanced path between defensive registry policing and practical market testing.<\/p>\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\">The dispute arose when a corporate entity sought statutory protection for its footwear brand by filing an application for the registration of the word mark &#8220;ANAAR&#8221; in Class 25 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. During the examination process, the trademark registry issued an examination report citing statutory objections under Section 11(1) of the Act. The report highlighted that the applied mark was identical or similar to an earlier registered trademark, specifically Application Number 3108965, which covered similar goods and consequently created a severe likelihood of public confusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicant responded to the examination report, and subsequent administrative hearings were conducted by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks. Paradoxically, during the same period, the registry permitted the progression of three concurrent applications filed by the same applicant where the word &#8220;ANAAR&#8221; was represented in a stylized device form. However, when it came to the plain word mark, the Senior Examiner issued a final refusal order, rejecting the application stylised without letting it proceed to the public advertisement stage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Faced with the absolute rejection of its core word mark, the applicant filed a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the Bombay High Court, which was registered as a commercial miscellaneous petition. Moving proactively to clear its path, the applicant also initiated independent rectification proceedings against the conflicting cited trademark registration. Notably, the registered proprietor of the cited mark failed to file any counterstatement in those rectification proceedings, signaling a potential abandonment or lack of commercial interest in defending their registered mark.<\/p>\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 legal question before the Court was whether the trademark registry was legally justified in completely refusing the registration of the wordmark at the pre-advertisement stage under the relative grounds of Section 11(1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicant contended that an osignallingejection without advertisement bypassed a critical exploratory phase provided by the statute. They argued that if the application had been advertised in the official journal, it would have become evident that the prior registration was not even actively being used in the market. The lack of a counterstatement in the rectification proceedings further proved that the registry&#8217;s apprehensions of commercial confusion were visually overstated and lacked a real-world foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the other side, the representation for the trademark registry defended the refusal order, stating that a prior valid registration existed in the exact same business sector of footwear. The registry argued that while device marks offer distinct visual components that mitigate confusion, a plain word mark captures the entire phonetic and structural identity, making it highly conflicting with the existing registration. Therefore, the registry asserted that its proactive refusal was valid and that the applicant should wait for the rectification proceedings to conclude naturally before seeking registration.<\/p>\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 undertook a focused statutory analysis of the procedural routes available to the trademark registry when dealing with conflicting marks. The judgment centered entirely on the interpretation of Section 20(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which governs the advertisement of trademark applications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The main text of Section 20(1) mandates that once an application is accepted, the Registrar must cause it to be advertised to invite public opposition. Crucially, the Court highlighted the proviso attached to Section 20(1), which vests a special discretionary power in the Registrar. This proviso explicitly states that the Registrar may cause an application to be advertised before formal acceptance if it relates to a trademark where absolute grounds for refusal under Section 9(1) or relative grounds for refusal under Section 11(1) apply, or in any other exceptional circumstances where such a course appears expedient.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court observed that the Senior Examiner&#8217;s refusal order relied heavily on theoretical factors, such as the nature of the goods, the category of buyers, and the methods of purchasing, to conclude that public confusion was inevitable. The Court reasoned that under the peculiar facts of this case, an outright rejection based on these assumptions was unwarranted. Since the registry had already allowed three parallel device marks featuring the word &#8220;ANAAR&#8221;, and because the owner of the cited conflicting mark chose not to contest the rectification proceedings, the market realities were clearly different from the registry&#8217;s rigid initial assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court interpreted the proviso to Section 20(1) as a statutory safety valve designed precisely for such ambiguous scenarios. By directing a pre-acceptance advertisement, the registry does not automatically grant the trademark; rather, it opens the floor to see if the theoretical apprehensions translate into actual commercial objections from the existing proprietor or the public. The Court concluded that using this discretion to advertise the mark was the most expedient and legally sound method to determine if the reasons for refusal were credible or merely hypothetical.<\/p>\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 exercised its appellate jurisdiction to make a limited but vital intervention in the matter. The Court set aside the impugned refusal order passed by the Senior Examiner of Trade Marks. Instead of ordering an outright registration, the Court directed the trademark registry to publish the application as an advertisement in the official journal by exercising its powers under the proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act. This direction ensures that the application will undergo a transparent public notice phase, enabling the Registrar to evaluate any legitimate third-party objections that may be filed in response to the advertisement before making a final decision on registration. The commercial miscellaneous petition was thus formally disposed of with these operative directions.<\/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\">This judgement firmly establishes that where relative grounds for refusal under Section 11(1) are invoked against a trademark application, the registry should not routinely resort to absolute, pre-advertisement rejections if there are mitigating factors or parallel device approvals. The ruling clarifies that the proviso to Section 20(1) serves as an essential procedural mechanism to test the validity of market confusion. By utilising pre-acceptance advertisements in exceptional circumstances, the registry can transition from making speculative assumptions about consumer confusion to evaluating real-world market responses, thereby preventing legitimate businesses from being unfairly blocked at the entry gate of intellectual property protection.<\/p>\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\/trademark-protection-and-its-registration-process-in-india\/\">Trademark Protection and Its Registration Process in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-trademark-class-clerical-error-registry-correction-2026\/\">Delhi High Court Directs Trade Marks Registry to Correct Clerical Error in Trademark Class | M\/S Psychotropic India Ltd Case (2026)<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/bail-for-women-accused-an-analysis-of-supreme-court-of-indias-jurisprudence\/\">Bail for Women Accused: An Analysis of Supreme Court of India\u2019s Jurisprudence<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/suits-by-foreign-plaintiffs-and-the-mandate-of-security-for-costs-law-limits-and-interpretations\/\">Suits by Foreign Plaintiffs and the Mandate of Security for Costs: Law, Limits, and Interpretations<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-rules-registry-cannot-refuse-filing-of-execution-petitions-landmark-2026-judgment-explained\/\">Delhi High Court Rules Registry Cannot Refuse Filing of Execution Petitions: Landmark 2026 Judgement Explained<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court ANAAR Word Mark Ruling: Section 20(1) Pre-Advertisement Order Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited v. Jeevan Kumar, Senior Examiner of Trade Marks and Anr. High Court of Judicature at Bombay | Judgement Date: July 3, 2026 | Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC:902 Case Details Field Details Title of the Case Kleo Consumer Brands Private Limited<\/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-28091","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>Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court directs pre-advertisement of the ANAAR word mark application under the proviso to Section 20(1), even after Section 11(1) refusal. Read the full 2026 ruling on word mark vs device mark protection.\" \/>\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\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court directs pre-advertisement of the ANAAR word mark application under the proviso to Section 20(1), even after Section 11(1) refusal. Read the full 2026 ruling on word mark vs device mark protection.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-07-18T09:46:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-18T09:51:25+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=\"6 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\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-18T09:46:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-18T09:51:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1281,\"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\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/\",\"name\":\"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-18T09:46:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-18T09:51:25+00:00\",\"description\":\"Bombay High Court directs pre-advertisement of the ANAAR word mark application under the proviso to Section 20(1), even after Section 11(1) refusal. Read the full 2026 ruling on word mark vs device mark protection.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Trademark Laws > ANAAR Trademark Case: Bombay HC Orders Advertisement of Word Mark Despite Prior Registration\"}]},{\"@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":"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Bombay High Court directs pre-advertisement of the ANAAR word mark application under the proviso to Section 20(1), even after Section 11(1) refusal. Read the full 2026 ruling on word mark vs device mark protection.","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\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry","og_description":"Bombay High Court directs pre-advertisement of the ANAAR word mark application under the proviso to Section 20(1), even after Section 11(1) refusal. Read the full 2026 ruling on word mark vs device mark protection.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-18T09:46:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-18T09:51:25+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry","datePublished":"2026-07-18T09:46:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-18T09:51:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/"},"wordCount":1281,"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\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/","name":"Pre-Advertisement Rejections by the Trademark Registry - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-18T09:46:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-18T09:51:25+00:00","description":"Bombay High Court directs pre-advertisement of the ANAAR word mark application under the proviso to Section 20(1), even after Section 11(1) refusal. Read the full 2026 ruling on word mark vs device mark protection.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/pre-advertisement-rejections-by-the-trademark-registry\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trademark Laws > ANAAR Trademark Case: Bombay HC Orders Advertisement of Word Mark Despite Prior Registration"}]},{"@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\/28091","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=28091"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28091\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28138,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28091\/revisions\/28138"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28091"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28091"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28091"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}