Published on: 29 September 2023 at 15:36 IST
The Madras High Court has ruled in favor of the advertisement of the ‘URELOG’ trademark, rejecting claims that the word is a self-evident fusion of “urine” or “urea.”
This decision highlights that marks consisting of derived elements like “URE” and “LAC” typically receive lower degrees of protection compared to arbitrary or fanciful marks.
The High Court’s decision came in response to an appeal under Section 91 of the Trademark Act, 1999, which sought to overturn the Examiner’s decision regarding the ‘URELOG’ mark and secure its registration.
In a ruling by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, it was stated that “considering the explanation regarding the reason for adopting the mark, the presence of multiple marks containing the element ‘URE,’ and the fact that ‘URELOG’ is not a self-evident fusion of urea/urine and ketoanalogue, the challenged order should be set aside, and the application should be accepted for advertisement.”
The case revolved around the appellant’s application to register the word mark ‘URELOG’ on a “proposed to be used” basis.
The Registrar of Trademarks raised objections under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, citing three similar marks. In response, the appellant argued that the ‘URELOG’ mark is distinctive and was coined honestly, combining ‘URE’ related to the kidney and ‘LOG’ derived from ‘KETOANALOGUE,’ a kidney-related supplement. Despite this, the Registrar refused permission after a hearing.
Upon reviewing the appellant’s materials, the Bench found that “URE” is derived from “urea” or “urine.” Similarly, “LOG” appeared to have been derived from “KETOANALOGUE,” a supplement for renal function improvement.
The Bench also considered the number of marks registered with the elements “URE” and “LAC” and the explanation for adopting the mark provided by the appellant.
As a result, the High Court approved the trademark application.
Case Title: TIL Healthcare Private Limited v. Registrar of Trademarks