One category of trademarks, known as "descriptive trademarks," often faces challenges in registration due to their inherent nature. However, the concept of secondary meaning has emerged as a crucial factor in determining the registrability of descriptive marks. This article delves into a recent legal case, highlighting the significance of secondary significance in the context of descriptive trademark registration.

Case Background:
In the case of the Appellant, a US Corporation, the trademark 'DATAPAQ' was sought to be registered in connection with various products, including computer software for temperature profiling systems in the fields of heavy clay and ceramics. The application was rejected by the Registrar of Trademarks, citing Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which bars registration of descriptive marks. The impugned order was cryptic, merely stating that the trademark is descriptive, and thus refused.

Appellant's Grievance:
The Appellant's primary grievance was centered around the lack of reasoning in the impugned order. They contended that the order did not consider whether their mark 'DATAPAQ' had acquired secondary meaning, a vital aspect that could render a descriptive mark registrable.

Court's Observations:
The Hon'ble Court recognized a well-established legal principle that descriptive marks can indeed be registered if they acquire secondary meaning. The Court identified the central issue with the impugned order: the absence of consideration regarding the acquisition of secondary meaning. The order's reasoning was deemed unsustainable due to its failure to delve into this crucial aspect.

The Significance of Secondary Meaning:
Secondary meaning, also known as acquired distinctiveness, refers to a situation where a descriptive mark, through extensive and continuous use, becomes associated with a specific source in the minds of consumers. In such cases, the mark transcends its descriptive nature and attains a distinctiveness that warrants protection.

Appellant's Evidence of Secondary Meaning:
To bolster their case, the Appellant presented compelling evidence. They demonstrated that 'DATAPAQ' had been in use since 1985 across various countries and had also been registered in numerous jurisdictions, including the USA. Additionally, the Appellant's portfolio featured a series of marks, all ending with 'PAQ,' such as 'COILPAQ,' 'WICKETPAQ,' and others. This consistent series of marks underpinned the distinctiveness and recognition of the term 'PAQ' in association with the Appellant.

Court's Decision:
In light of the evidence presented and the legal precedent emphasizing secondary meaning, the Court determined that the mark 'DATAPAQ' was deserving of registration, subject to certain conditions. The Court's order aimed to strike a balance between the descriptive nature of the mark and its acquired distinctiveness. Consequently, the registration was confined to the word mark 'DATAPAQ' as a whole.

The Concluding Note:
The case underscores the importance of secondary meaning in transforming descriptive marks into registrable ones. The Court's decision aligns with the broader objective of trademark law - to protect marks that have transcended their descriptive origins and have become identifiers of specific sources in the market.

Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: Fluke Corporation Vs Registrar Of Trademarks
Date of Judgement:03.07.2023
Case No. CA Comm IPD TM 47 of 2023
Neutral Citation No: 2023: DHC: 5900
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer:
Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539