Vakil Help Desk News: the Delhi High Court has set aside the refusal of the 'COBBLE STONE' trademark and sent it back to the Registrar for fresh consideration, after the applicant claimed honest concurrent use since 2011.
Vakil Help Desk News, IPR. A trademark refused as too similar to an earlier mark is not the end of the road — the applicant can appeal and get a fresh hearing. The Delhi High Court did this in Cobble Stone Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, decided by Justice Vikas Mahajan.
The dispute
The applicant sought to register "COBBLE STONE" in Class 19. The Registrar refused it under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, finding it deceptively similar to two earlier marks. The applicant said it had used the mark since 2011 and was an honest concurrent user under Section 12, and wanted a chance to file evidence of use.
What the Court held
- The appeal was allowed and the Registrar's refusal was set aside.
- The application was remanded to the Registrar for fresh (de novo) consideration, with a direction to decide within 60 days.
- The Court did not decide the merits, leaving the honest-concurrent-use claim and any territorial limitation for the Registrar to consider.
Why it matters
Section 12 allows registration of a mark that is similar to an earlier one where there has been honest concurrent use. A refusal under Section 11 can be challenged, and evidence of genuine, long use can give the application a second chance.
What this means for you
If your trademark application is refused for being similar to an earlier mark, you can appeal — a refusal is not final. If you have used the mark honestly for years, 'honest concurrent use' under Section 12 may still get it registered, so keep dated evidence of your use (invoices, advertising, packaging) from day one. We handle trademark objections, hearings and appeals against refusals.