{"id":28521,"date":"2026-07-29T07:03:59","date_gmt":"2026-07-29T07:03:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=28521"},"modified":"2026-07-29T07:13:06","modified_gmt":"2026-07-29T07:13:06","slug":"delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court: &#8216;Uniqueness&#8217; Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)"},"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\">The High Court of Delhi recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the standards applied by the Trade Marks Registry when examining trademark applications for registration. The decision clarifies the distinct boundary between the statutory requirement of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the non-statutory concept of uniqueness. The ruling reinforces the imperative that quasi-judicial authorities like the Registrar of Trade Marks must issue well-reasoned, speaking orders that actively consider the material and precedents submitted by applicants rather than issuing standardized rejection templates.<\/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\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Dispute_Before_the_Court\" >Dispute Before 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-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Appellants_Contentions\" >Appellant&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Respondents_Contentions\" >Respondent&#8217;s Contentions<\/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\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Distinctiveness_Under_Section_91a\" >Distinctiveness Under Section 9(1)(a)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Judicial_Precedents_Relied_Upon\" >Judicial Precedents Relied Upon<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Offer_Versus_Discount\" >Offer Versus Discount<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Criticism_of_the_Trade_Marks_Registry\" >Criticism of the Trade Marks Registry<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Key_Legal_Principles\" >Key Legal Principles<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#Important_Links\" >Important Links<\/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\">The appellant company, incorporated in 2010 as part of a prominent Indian alcoholic beverage group, had achieved total liquor sales exceeding 7,500 crore rupees by March 2025 across its various established brand lines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Seeking statutory rights over a new mark, the appellant filed Trade Mark Application No. 5514779 on July 3, 2022, seeking registration of the word mark <strong>OFFER<\/strong> in Class 33 for alcoholic beverages (except beers) and alcoholic preparations for making beverages on a proposed to be used basis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Trademarks Registry issued an Examination Report on November 18, 2022, raising absolute grounds of refusal under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The objection was communicated through a pre-formulated template stating that the mark was a common surname, personal name, geographical name, ornamental, or non-distinctive geometrical figure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicant filed its formal reply on December 26, 2022, explaining that the mark was arbitrary and inherently distinctive in respect of alcoholic beverages.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Ahead of scheduled hearings, the applicant submitted an additional reply on June 24, 2024, listing over thirty previously registered marks in various classes incorporating the word <strong>&#8220;OFFER&#8221;<\/strong> along with relevant case laws establishing that an ordinary word can be arbitrary when applied to unrelated goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Without addressing these detailed submissions or the cited precedents, the registrar issued an order on October 30, 2025, refusing registration under Section 9(1)(a). The order concluded that in general usage, the word <strong>&#8220;offer&#8221;<\/strong> refers to demanding a discount when purchasing goods or services and, being devoid of uniqueness, could not be registered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The applicant subsequently filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, before the High Court of Delhi.<\/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>Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>03 July 2022<\/td><td>Trademark Application No. 5514779 was filed for the mark <strong>OFFER<\/strong> in Class 33.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>18 November 2022<\/td><td>An examination report was issued raising objections under Section 9(1)(a).<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>26 December 2022<\/td><td>Applicant submitted first reply.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>24 June 2024<\/td><td>Additional reply filed with precedents and registered marks.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>30 October 2025<\/td><td>The registrar rejected the application.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Appeal Filed<\/td><td>Appeal preferred before the High Court under Section 91.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>21 July 2026<\/td><td>The Delhi High Court delivered judgment.<\/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 primary legal issue requiring adjudication was whether the Registrar of Trade Marks applied the correct legal standard under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when assessing the registrability of the mark <strong>OFFER<\/strong> for Class 33 goods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appellant-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Contentions\"><\/span>Appellant&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The Registrar applied an incorrect legal test by insisting on uniqueness, a concept foreign to trademark law, instead of assessing capability to distinguish goods.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Although <strong>&#8220;offer&#8221;<\/strong> is an ordinary English word, it is completely arbitrary when applied to alcoholic beverages because it bears no descriptive connection with liquor products.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Registrar failed to discharge quasi-judicial functions by issuing a cryptic order.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Registrar ignored the following:\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The applicant&#8217;s written replies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The list of registered composite marks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Binding judicial precedents cited by the applicant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-respondent-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondents_Contentions\"><\/span>Respondent&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The word <strong>&#8220;offer&#8221;<\/strong> is commonly used in trade to denote discounts or promotional schemes.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Granting exclusive rights over such a common word would hinder ordinary commercial communication.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The refusal order was sufficiently reasoned under Section 9(1)(a).<\/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 examined the statutory language of Section 9(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which prohibits registration of marks that are devoid of any distinctive character\u2014defined statutorily as being incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court observed that the statute nowhere mentions or requires uniqueness, novelty, or inventiveness as a prerequisite for registration. By evaluating the mark on the test of uniqueness, the registrar introduced an unauthorized standard not supported by law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-distinctiveness-under-section-9-1-a\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinctiveness_Under_Section_91a\"><\/span>Distinctiveness Under Section 9(1)(a)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Analyzing the spectrum of distinctiveness, the Court reiterated that marks fall into arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Distinctiveness cannot be determined in isolation. It must always be evaluated relative to the specific goods or services involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An ordinary English word may be generic or descriptive for one category of goods but entirely arbitrary and distinctive for another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-judicial-precedents-relied-upon\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Precedents_Relied_Upon\"><\/span>Judicial Precedents Relied Upon<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">To illustrate this principle, the Court referred to well-established judicial precedents where common or non-descriptive words were protected because they lacked a direct connection to the underlying products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Case<\/th><th>Principle Laid Down<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Oswaal Books and Learnings Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/strong> (2026 SCC OnLine Del 2362)<\/td><td>The phrase <strong>&#8220;ONE FOR ALL&#8221;<\/strong> was registrable for educational books because it did not describe tangible paper products.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asus Technology Pvt. Ltd.<\/strong> (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8739)<\/td><td><strong>ZEN<\/strong>, though generic in Buddhism, was arbitrary and protectable for mobile phones.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Mohd. Rafiq v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd.<\/strong> (1971 SCC OnLine Del 190)<\/td><td>The word <strong>&#8220;SUN&#8221;<\/strong> was capable of acquiring distinctiveness for lanterns because its connection was remote rather than descriptive.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Disruptive Health Solutions Private Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/strong> (2022 SCC OnLine Del 2002)<\/td><td>Arbitrary and suggestive marks possess inherent distinctiveness and do not require proof of secondary meaning.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-offer-versus-discount\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Offer_Versus_Discount\"><\/span>Offer Versus Discount<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court also observed that the Registrar conflated the terms &#8220;offer&#8221; and &#8220;discount.&#8221;<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>An offer is an invitation to transact.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A discount is a price reduction.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The word <strong>&#8220;offer&#8221;<\/strong> alone is not a standard standalone expression for price reductions without qualifying words such as &#8220;special&#8221; or &#8220;limited.&#8221;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-criticism-of-the-trade-marks-registry\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Criticism_of_the_Trade_Marks_Registry\"><\/span>Criticism of the Trade Marks Registry<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Additionally, the Court severely criticized the administrative manner in which the Trademarks Registry processed the application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The initial examination report contained a mechanical checklist of contradictory objections.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The examination report demonstrated lack of application of mind.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The final rejection order failed to discuss:\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The applicant&#8217;s written responses.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The thirty-one registered composite marks cited.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The binding judicial precedents relied upon.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Citing <em>I Am the Ocean, LLC v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/em> (2023 SCC OnLine Bom 3341) and <em>Psychotropic India Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks<\/em> (2026 SCC OnLine Del 446), the Court reiterated that passing unreasoned and cryptic orders without considering material on record represents an abdication of quasi-judicial duties.<\/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 set aside and quashed the impugned order dated October 30, 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trade mark application was remanded back to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh consideration strictly under the statutory parameters of Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The registrar was directed to issue a reasoned decision within four months after granting a hearing to the appellant and reviewing all written submissions and cited materials on record.<\/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 judgment reaffirms that uniqueness is not a statutory condition for trademark registration in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The test under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, is limited to distinctiveness\u2014specifically, whether a mark can distinguish the applicant&#8217;s goods from those of others when viewed in direct relation to the specific goods involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision also reaffirms that the Registrar of Trade Marks, operating as a quasi-judicial authority, cannot issue mechanical, unreasoned, or standardized rejection orders that ignore written replies and precedents submitted by applicants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 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><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Uniqueness is <strong>not<\/strong> a statutory requirement under Section 9(1)(a).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Distinctiveness must always be assessed in relation to the specific goods or services.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ordinary English words may still qualify as arbitrary trademarks depending on the goods involved.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Reasoned speaking orders are mandatory for quasi-judicial authorities.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The Registrar must consider all written submissions and judicial precedents before deciding on an application.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\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\"><tbody><tr><th>Title of the Case<\/th><td>ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Date of Judgment<\/th><td>21.07.2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Case Number<\/th><td>C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 8\/2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Neutral Citation<\/th><td>2026:DHC:5783<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Name of Court<\/th><td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><th>Honorable Judge<\/th><td>Honorable 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\/registrability-of-one-for-all-trademark-oswaal-books-vs-registrar\/\">Slogans Are Inherently Non-Distinctive And Must Meet A High Threshold To Qualify For Trademark Registration<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/fingerprints-in-forensic-science-and-law-from-immutable-identity-to-digital-evidence\/\">Fingerprints in Forensic Science and Law: From Immutable Identity to Digital Evidence<\/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\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/no-intra-court-appeal-against-single-judges-order-under-section-91-of-the-trade-marks-act-1999\/\">No Intra-Court Appeal Against Single Judge\u2019s Order Under Section 91 of the Trademarks Act, 1999<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\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<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Links\"><\/span>Important Links<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Important Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/lawyers\/lawyers_home.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Lawyers in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/copyright\/register.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Copyright Registration in India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/articles\/index.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/helpline\/mutual_consent_divorce.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi\/ <\/a>NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The High Court of Delhi recently delivered a significant judgment concerning the standards applied by the Trade Marks Registry when examining trademark applications for registration. The decision clarifies the distinct boundary between the statutory requirement of distinctive character under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the non-statutory concept of uniqueness. The<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","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-28521","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 v28.1 (Yoast SEO v28.1) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Delhi High Court: &#039;Uniqueness&#039; Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court rules trademark registration requires distinctiveness, not uniqueness, under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.\" \/>\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\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delhi High Court: &#039;Uniqueness&#039; Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court rules trademark registration requires distinctiveness, not uniqueness, under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/\" \/>\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=\"2026-07-29T07:03:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-29T07:13:06+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=\"7 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\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Delhi High Court: &#8216;Uniqueness&#8217; Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-29T07:03:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-29T07:13:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1422,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Trademark Laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"Delhi High Court: 'Uniqueness' Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-29T07:03:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-29T07:13:06+00:00\",\"description\":\"Delhi High Court rules trademark registration requires distinctiveness, not uniqueness, under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\\\/#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 Clarifies Trademark Law: Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Is the Test Under Section 9(1)(a)\"}]},{\"@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":"Delhi High Court: 'Uniqueness' Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"Delhi High Court rules trademark registration requires distinctiveness, not uniqueness, under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.","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\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delhi High Court: 'Uniqueness' Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)","og_description":"Delhi High Court rules trademark registration requires distinctiveness, not uniqueness, under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-07-29T07:03:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-29T07:13:06+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Delhi High Court: &#8216;Uniqueness&#8217; Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026)","datePublished":"2026-07-29T07:03:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-29T07:13:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/"},"wordCount":1422,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"keywords":["Trademark Laws"],"articleSection":["Trademark Laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/","name":"Delhi High Court: 'Uniqueness' Not Mandatory for Trademark Registration Under Section 9(1)(a) | ADS Spirits v Registrar of Trade Marks (2026) - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-07-29T07:03:59+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-29T07:13:06+00:00","description":"Delhi High Court rules trademark registration requires distinctiveness, not uniqueness, under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/delhi-high-court-uniqueness-not-mandatory-for-trademark-registration-under-section-91a-ads-spirits-v-registrar-of-trade-marks-2026\/#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 Clarifies Trademark Law: Distinctiveness, Not Uniqueness, Is the Test Under Section 9(1)(a)"}]},{"@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\/28521","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=28521"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28521\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":28703,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/28521\/revisions\/28703"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=28521"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=28521"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=28521"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}