{"id":9208,"date":"2025-09-27T11:03:51","date_gmt":"2025-09-27T11:03:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=9208"},"modified":"2025-09-28T07:23:10","modified_gmt":"2025-09-28T07:23:10","slug":"unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/","title":{"rendered":"Unpacking Descriptive Trade Marks"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Shoranur_Metal_Industries_LLP_Another_Vs_The_Metal_Industries_Limited_Another\"><\/span>Shoranur Metal Industries LLP &amp; Another Vs. The Metal Industries Limited &amp; Another<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The story of this case begins with a company called <strong>The Metal Industries Limited<\/strong>, which is owned by the Government of Kerala. This company has been around for about 94 years, starting way back, and its main office is in Shoranur. They make tools for farming, such as sickles, spades, shovels, pickaxes, axes, saws, cutleries, and mammatties. Their products are sold under the brand name <em>Tusker<\/em>, which comes with a special emblem. Over the years, this company built a good name for itself, and people know it well, especially in the area. They even registered their company name, Metal Industries, as a trade mark under the law that protects such names, specifically Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Because it is based in Shoranur, people often call it Shoranur Metal Industries informally.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 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\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Shoranur_Metal_Industries_LLP_Another_Vs_The_Metal_Industries_Limited_Another\" >Shoranur Metal Industries LLP &amp; Another Vs. The Metal Industries Limited &amp; Another<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Defendants_Contentions\" >Defendant&#8217;s Contentions<\/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\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Procedural_Details\" >Procedural Details<\/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\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Dispute\" >Dispute<\/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\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Detailed_Reasoning\" >Detailed Reasoning<\/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\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/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\/unpacking-descriptive-trade-marks\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>A second party is <strong>Shoranur Metal Industries LLP<\/strong>, a newer firm started in 2019, also in the same area, about three kilometres away. This firm is run by Krishnakumar as the main partner, and they also make iron and steel tools for farming, similar to what the older company does. Their products go by the brand name <em>K.Kumar Tools<\/em>. In 2020, the older company noticed that the new firm\u2019s name was causing mix-ups among people. Customers and traders started thinking the new firm was part of or the same as the old one because both used \u201cMetal Industries\u201d in their names. The old company sent a legal notice asking the new firm to stop using that name, but the new firm replied saying they were not doing anything wrong. The old company then filed a lawsuit asking for a court order to stop the new firm from using \u201cMetal Industries\u201d in their name, to remove it from all papers and advertisements, and for damages of about Rs. 1,00,000, alleging violations of Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Defendants_Contentions\"><\/span>Defendant&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The new firm argued that their business was not exactly the same. They said their tools are made specially to customers\u2019 specifications, unlike the older company\u2019s standard products. They maintained that words like \u201cMetal Industries\u201d are common descriptive words for the nature of the business, and many companies across India use similar names, so no single entity can own those words exclusively. They also said the old company is not officially known as Shoranur Metal Industries and that there was no real confusion or harm.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Details\"><\/span>Procedural Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The lawsuit began as <strong>Original Suit No. 1 of 2023<\/strong> in the District Court at Palakkad. The Metal Industries Limited was the plaintiff, and Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and its partner were the defendants. The District Court framed six main issues to decide, including whether there was copying of the name, whether it caused confusion, and whether the plaintiff deserved protection.<\/p>\n<p>Both sides presented evidence. The older company produced a witness (Pw1) and documents such as registration papers (Exts. A1 to A15). The new firm produced a witness (Dw1) and documents (Exts. B1 to B4). After hearing everything, the District Court sided with the older company and issued a permanent injunction restraining the new firm from using \u201cMetal Industries\u201d in their business name and ordering removal of the name from all communications, advertisements, newspapers, and social media. The new firm appealed to the High Court of Kerala.<\/p>\n<p>The appeal was filed as <strong>Regular First Appeal No. 287 of 2024<\/strong>. The High Court heard arguments from Harikumar G. for the appellants and Saji Varghese T.G. for the respondents. The case was heard on 26 August 2025, and judgment was delivered on 18 September 2025. The High Court focused on three main questions: (1) Did the new firm copy the registered name? (2) Could the new firm raise a lawful defence? and (3) Was there passing off?<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute\"><\/span>Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The core dispute was whether the new firm could use the name \u201cShoranur Metal Industries\u201d when the older company had registered \u201cMetal Industries\u201d as a trade mark. The plaintiff claimed infringement and argued the defendant\u2019s name was too similar, causing public confusion and implying a connection. The plaintiff sought an order to restrain the defendant and to require a name change.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant countered that \u201cmetal\u201d and \u201cindustries\u201d are ordinary descriptive words that indicate the kind of business. They argued that such common or descriptive words cannot be monopolised unless they acquire a distinct secondary meaning that exclusively identifies the proprietor. The defendants also pointed to differences in product brands \u2014 <em>Tusker<\/em> for the plaintiff and <em>K.Kumar Tools<\/em> for the defendant \u2014 and noted that \u201cMetal Industries\u201d is not used on the products themselves.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff also relied on passing off principles, alleging that even if direct infringement were not established, the defendant\u2019s use could mislead the public into thinking the defendant\u2019s goods originated from the plaintiff. The defendant denied any evidence of damage or deception.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judge began by explaining trade mark law: a trade mark identifies the origin of goods and is protected to prevent confusion. The plaintiff\u2019s registration of \u201cMetal Industries\u201d engages Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits use of a similar mark by another for similar goods. However, Section 30(2)(a) is an exception: use of a term that merely describes the kind, quality, or other characteristics of goods is not infringement. The defendants relied on this exception, arguing that \u201cmetal\u201d and \u201cindustries\u201d are descriptive or generic.<\/p>\n<p>The judge examined precedent. In <em>Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel<\/em>, (2006) 8 SCC 726, the Supreme Court observed that a mark connects goods to a source and that exclusive rights follow registration, but also emphasised the risk of deception where two parties use similar marks. The judge noted, however, that the plaintiff here did not prove that \u201cMetal Industries\u201d had acquired an exclusive secondary meaning beyond its descriptive character.<\/p>\n<p>The judge also relied on <em>Pornsricharoenpun Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. L&#8217;Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.<\/em> (MANU\/DE\/4515\/2022), where the Delhi High Court held that courts can examine distinctiveness and validity of a registered mark at an early stage if the defence raises valid points. Descriptive marks must acquire a secondary meaning to be enforceable; otherwise, common words cannot be monopolised. Applying that reasoning, the judge found \u201cMetal Industries\u201d descriptive and open to challenge under Sections 30 and 35 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n<p>The judge referenced other authorities emphasising that ordinary English words used in trade cannot be exclusively appropriated: <em>Skyline Education Institute (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. S.L. Vaswani<\/em>, AIR 2010 SC 3221 (noting the generic nature of \u201cskyline\u201d); <em>Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Ors.<\/em>, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7841 (observing that registration of ordinary words implies acceptance that others may use similar combinations); and <em>Yatra Online Ltd. v. Mach Conferences and Events Ltd.<\/em>, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5610 (holding that generic or descriptive words do not, by themselves, gain distinctiveness).<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff cited <em>T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.<\/em>, (2011) 4 SCC 85, where the court protected a descriptive term that had acquired a secondary meaning. The judge contrasted that with the present facts and found no evidence that \u201cMetal Industries\u201d had acquired such a secondary meaning tied exclusively to the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>On passing off, the judge explained the classical trinity: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Several authorities were considered, including <em>Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/em>, AIR 2001 SC 1952 (factors for deceptive similarity), and local authorities emphasising the need to prove reputation and likely deception. The judge held that there was no adequate evidence of damage or likely deception here. The distinct brands (Tusker and K.Kumar Tools), absence of the name on products, and lack of proof of a secondary meaning weighed against the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the District Court\u2019s orders. The injunction against the new firm was vacated, the appellants were permitted to continue using the name <em>Shoranur Metal Industries<\/em>, and the original suit was dismissed. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> Shoranur Metal Industries LLP &amp; Another Vs. The Metal Industries Limited &amp; Another<\/p>\n<p><strong>Order Date:<\/strong> 18th September 2025<\/p>\n<p><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> RFA No. 287 of 2024<\/p>\n<p><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:KER:69913<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Court:<\/strong> High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam<\/p>\n<p><strong>Name of Hon&#8217;ble Judge:<\/strong> The Honourable Mr. Justice C. Pratheep Kumar<\/p>\n<p><b>Disclaimer:<\/b>\u00a0The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><b>Written By:\u00a0Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/b> IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Shoranur Metal Industries LLP &amp; Another Vs. The Metal Industries Limited &amp; Another Facts The story of this case begins with a company called The Metal Industries Limited, which is owned by the Government of Kerala. This company has been around for about 94 years, starting way back, and its main office is in Shoranur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","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,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-9208","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9208","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=9208"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9208\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9208"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9208"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9208"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}