Mark ‘TIGER’ Doesn’t Have Exclusive Character; Can’t Claim Ownership Over Same: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering an Application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking an interim injunction restraining the infringement of the Mark (Plaintiff’s / TIGER GOLD BRAND Mark), infringement of Copyright, passing off, misrepresentation by selling, advertising, mentioning or using the Mark TIGER PREMIUM BRAND.

The Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia held, “There is a widespread use of the Mark ‘TIGER’ for various goods and services across India. Hence, ‘TIGER’ is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has also not produced any material to show that the Mark ‘TIGER’has acquired secondary meaning. The Mark ‘TIGER’ does not have an exclusive character and, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim exclusive right over the same.”

Advocate R.P. Yadav represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Amit George represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Plaintiff’s Mark. The Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of agricultural goods such as Harrows, Disc Harrows, Tractor-towed harrows, etc. The Plaintiff’s Mark was adopted by the Plaintiff in May 2010 for agricultural implements other than hand operated Harrows, Disc Harrows, etc. It was claimed that the Defendant had adopted the Impugned Mark, which is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Mark, for goods identical to those of the Plaintiff, specifically agricultural implements other than Hand-operated types, such as Harrows, Disc Harrows, and Tractor-towed Harrows.

In October 2024, the Plaintiff became aware that the Defendants were marketing products similar to those of the Plaintiff under the Impugned Mark. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants deliberately and intentionally adopted the Impugned Mark, which is similar or identical to the Plaintiff’s Mark.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic in nature and incapable of being registered as a Trade Mark. As per the Bench, the Plaintiff does not have the exclusive right to use the Word Marks, ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’.

The Bench also noted that the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark were not deceptively similar, as the Impugned Mark had to be considered as a whole. It was further noticed that the Impugned Mark considered as a whole was wholly dissimilar to the Plaintiff’s Mark. The Impugned Mark was visually different to the Plaintiff’s Mark, and even the ‘TIGER’ device in the rival Marks was different.

“As ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are found to be generic and common to the trade, the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive ownership over the part of the Impugned Mark containing the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ as a part of them. As per Section 17 of the Act when a Trade Mark consists of several matters, its registration shall confer on the proprietor exclusive right to use of the Trade Mark taken as a whole”, the order read.

The Bench found that the rival marks were not identical / deceptively similar as the Plaintiff’s Mark and the Impugned Mark comprised of generic words, which could not be monopolised by any party. Further, the Plaintiff had not been able to make a case of misrepresentation by the Defendant, nor was it able to prove damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the adoption of the Impugned Mark by the Defendant.“Further, 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 by the Plaintiff. There is no likelihood of confusion amongst the class of consumers, which is likely to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff and dilute the Plaintiff’s Mark”, it stated.

Thus, holding that the Plaintiff has no exclusive right over the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ as the same are generic in nature and common to the trade, the Bench dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/s Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:143)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates R.P. Yadav, Riju Mani Talukdar

Respondent: Advocates Amit George, Manish Gandhi, Vaibhav Gandhi, Muskan Gandhi, Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Rupam Jha, Rohini Sharma, Chanchal Sharma

Click here to read/download Order