'Tiger’ is a common, generic word; trademark cannot be claimed: Delhi High Court

Words “TIGER” and “BRAND” are generic and incapable of exclusive ownership, the Delhi High Court ruled while refusing to grant an interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute relating to agricultural implements [Mayank Jain Vs Atulya Discs].

In a judgment delivered on January 9, Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the injunction application filed by plaintiff Mayank Jain, proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog, against Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. and others (defendants).

"Having considered the averments in the pleadings and the submissions made by the Parties, the Plaintiff has no exclusive right over the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ as the same are generic in nature and common to the trade."

Mahaveer Udyog, a proprietorship firm established in 1997, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of agricultural implements such as harrows, disc harrows and tractor-towed harrows.

The plaintiff claimed that it adopted the device mark “TIGER GOLD BRAND” in May 2010 and asserted continuous and uninterrupted use since then. An application for registration of the mark was filed in June 2022 and registration was granted in February 2023.

According to the plaintiff, it had built substantial goodwill and reputation over the years and alleged that in October 2024 it discovered that the defendants were marketing identical agricultural implements under the mark “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND”.

It was contended that the defendants had copied the essential features of the plaintiff’s mark, including the word Tiger and the tiger device and had merely replaced the word “GOLD” with “PREMIUM” to deceptively pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark, alleging trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, misrepresentation and unfair competition.

Certain defendants who operated online platforms also claimed intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The defendants contended that Tiger is a common and generic word widely used in relation to agricultural goods, that the plaintiff had no registration over the word mark Tiger, and that registration of a device mark does not confer exclusive rights over individual non-distinctive components.

The Court categorically rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to monopolise the word Tiger.

“The Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic in nature and incapable of being registered as a Trade Mark. Hence, ‘TIGER’ is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff,” the Court said.

On the plaintiff’s claim of distinctiveness, the Court said,

“The plaintiff has also not produced any material to show that the Mark ‘TIGER’ has acquired secondary meaning.”

Applying the anti-dissection rule while comparing the rival marks, the Court held the plaintiff’s mark and the impugned mark were not deceptively similar and the mark considered as a whole is wholly dissimilar to the plaintiff’s mark.

From the consumer’s perspective, particularly that of farmers, the Court held that the marks are visually different and would not cause confusion in the minds of the consumers.

On passing off, the Court concluded that the plaintiff has not been able to establish goodwill and reputation and, therefore, prima facie, a case of passing off has not been made out.

Accordingly, the application seeking an injunction was dismissed, with the Court holding that the defendants’ use of “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” did not amount to trademark infringement, passing off or copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s device mark.

The plaintiff was represented by advocates RP Yadav and Riju Mani Talukdar.

Three of the defendants were represented advocates Amit George, Manish Gandhi, Vaibhav Gandhi, Muskan Gandhi, Dushyant Kishan Kaul and Rupam Jha.

Another defendant was represented by advocates Rohini Sharma and Chanchal Sharma.

[Read Judgment]