Brunch Beauty Private LimitedversusThe Registrar of Trade Marks

         Digitally
         signed by
         MEERA                                                 1/4                    55-COMMP-130-25.DOC
MEERA    MAHESH
MAHESH   JADHAV
JADHAV   Date:
         2026.02.21
         14:45:08
         +0530
                                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                                                IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
                                     COMMERCIAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 130 OF 2025


                      Brunch Beauty Private Limited                                  ...Petitioner


                               Versus


                      The Registrar Of Trade Marks                                   ...Respondent


                                                             -----
                      Ms Janhvi Chadha, Ms Aishwarya A.Ms Shruti i/b Mr. Bimal Rajasekhar for
                      Petitioner.
                      Mr.Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Ashutosh Misra for Respondent.
                                                            -----


                                                        CORAM :          ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
                                                        DATE         :   17th FEBRUARY 2026

                      P.C.

                      1.       The Petitioner is aggrieved by an Order dated 20 th January 2025 passed

                      by the Respondent by which the Petitioner’s application for registration of the

                      word mark “in my defence” in Class 3 was refused under Section 9(1)(a) of the

                      Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Rule 25 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.



                      2.       The impugned order holds that the mark “ in my defence” is devoid of any

                      distinctive character and is incapable of distinguishing the Petitioner’s products

                      from those of others, since the Petitioner mark is a mere combination of non-

                      distinctive words and the documents which are insufficient to establish




                      Meera Jadhav
                                         2/4                   55-COMMP-130-25.DOC



distinctiveness. The impugned order further records that a registrable mark

ought to be invented, coined, arbitrary or suggestive in nature, and consequently

refused Application No. 5817120.



3.       Ms. Chadha, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that

the impugned order is wholly unsustainable in law as it is bereft of cogent

reasoning and reflects clear non-application of mind. She submitted that though

the order invokes Section 9(1)(a), it does not set out any reasoning as to how the

expression “in my defence” was incapable of distinguishing cosmetic and

personal care goods.



4.       Learned counsel further contended that the mark is neither descriptive of,

nor customary in the trade relating to cosmetics and personal care products. She

pointed out that the impugned order does not cite any evidence of common

usage, does not assess the mark as a whole, and erroneously proceeds on the

premise that a registrable mark must be invented or coined which was not a

requirement contemplated by the statute. She also submitted that the Respondent

had failed to meaningfully consider the Petitioner’s submissions and

documentary evidence and had not provided any reasoning as to why such

material was found insufficient to establish inherent or acquired distinctiveness.



5.       Ms. Chadha thus submitted that in the absence of any reasoned finding

establishing lack of inherent distinctiveness or failure to prove acquired

distinctiveness, the impugned order was passed in a mechanical manner and




Meera Jadhav
                                         3/4                    55-COMMP-130-25.DOC



contrary to well-settled principles governing the assessment of distinctiveness

under Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act.



6.       Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent,

opposed the Petition. However, when called upon to indicate the specific

reasoning supporting the refusal, he was unable to do so.



7.       Having heard learned counsel and having perused the impugned order,

there can be no manner of doubt that the same is not only bereft of any reasons

but also clearly reflects non-application of mind. In my view there can be no

manner of doubt that “in my defence” could not have been rejected under

Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act. The wealth of material upon which

reliance has been placed by the Petitioner has been completely ignored by the

Respondent. In these circumstances, the matter warrants reconsideration.



8.       Accordingly, the following order is passed:



(i) The impugned order dated 20 th January 2025 is set aside.



(ii) The matter is remanded to the Registrar of Trade Marks for fresh

consideration in accordance with law, after duly considering the Petitioner’s

submissions and material on record.



(iii) Having regard to the time already elapsed, the Registrar shall endeavour to

decide the application within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of



Meera Jadhav
                                        4/4                   55-COMMP-130-25.DOC



this order.



9.       The Commercial Miscellaneous Petition is accordingly disposed of.




                                                [ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]




Meera Jadhav