The Delhi High Court has quashed and set aside the Registrar’s order dated 30 October 2025 refusing registration of the mark “OFFER.” It directed the Registrar to reconsider ADS Spirits’ trademark application afresh in accordance with the parameters of Section 9(1)(a). The Court held that under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the correct legal test is whether the applied mark possesses “distinctive character,” that is, whether it is capable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods from those of others. The law does not require the mark to be “unique.”
The Court also clarified that distinctiveness cannot be judged in the abstract and must be assessed in relation to the goods or services concerned. Even a common English word may be registrable if it is arbitrary or otherwise distinctive in relation to the relevant goods. A refusal order passed by the Registrar without considering the applicant’s replies, documents, and cited authorities, and without giving reasons, is liable to be set aside as a non-speaking and legally infirm order.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh found the Examination Report itself to be problematic because it used a standard, omnibus objection format without clearly identifying whether “OFFER” was being treated as a surname, personal name, geographical name, or geometrical figure. The Court said this showed non-application of mind even at the threshold stage.
The Court further held that the impugned refusal order was wholly non-speaking, cryptic, and legally unsustainable because it did not deal with any of the applicant’s responses, additional submissions, cited judgments, or the list of registered marks containing the word “OFFER.” The Court emphasized that the Registrar, being a quasi-judicial authority, is required to consider the material on record and pass a reasoned order. Failure to do so amounts to abdication of statutory duty.
On the substantive test under Section 9(1)(a), the Court held that the Registrar had applied a legally incorrect standard by examining whether the mark was “unique.” The statute does not require uniqueness. It only bars marks that are devoid of distinctive character, meaning marks that are not capable of distinguishing one person’s goods or services from those of another. The Court made it clear that “uniqueness” is not the test embedded in Section 9(1)(a).
The Court reiterated the settled classification of trademarks into arbitrary or fanciful, suggestive, descriptive, and generic marks, and noted that distinctiveness must always be assessed in relation to the goods for which registration is sought. A word may be common or generic in one field, yet arbitrary and distinctive in another. Therefore, the correct inquiry was whether “OFFER” had a direct and immediate connection with alcoholic beverages in Class 33, not whether it is a common English word in the abstract.
Applying that principle, the Court observed that the Registrar had not actually undertaken the necessary exercise of testing whether the mark “OFFER” is distinctive qua alcoholic beverages. The Court also noted that “offer” and “discount” are not synonymous. An offer is a proposal or invitation to transact, whereas a discount is a reduction in price. The Court added that the word “offer” is not ordinarily used as a standalone expression to communicate a discount and is usually accompanied by qualifiers such as “special,” “limited,” or “exclusive.”
Briefly, ADS Spirits Pvt Ltd. filed an appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against the Registrar of Trade Marks’ order dated 30 October 2025, by which its trademark application for the word mark “OFFER” in Class 33 was refused under Section 9(1)(a) of the Act. The application had been filed on 3 July 2022 on a proposed-to-be-used basis for “alcoholic beverages, except beers; alcoholic preparations for making beverages.” ADS Spirits argued that it is a well-established liquor company and that “OFFER” is an arbitrary and inherently distinctive mark for alcoholic beverages, capable of distinguishing its goods from those of others.
The Registrar had issued an Examination Report on 18 November 2022 raising an objection under Section 9(1)(a), stating that the mark was a common surname, personal name, geographical name, ornamental expression, or a non-distinctive geometrical figure, and therefore incapable of distinguishing the applicant’s goods. ADS Spirits filed a reply and later an additional reply before the hearing, also placing reliance on case law and a list of registered marks containing the word “OFFER” with prefixes or suffixes. Despite this, the Registrar refused registration, holding in substance that the word “OFFER” is used in common parlance while asking for discounts and lacks uniqueness.
ADS Spirits challenged the refusal on the ground that the Registrar had ignored its submissions, applied the wrong legal standard, and passed a non-speaking and cryptic order. Its case was that Section 9(1)(a) speaks of “distinctive character” and not “uniqueness,” and that even an ordinary English word can function as a trademark if it is arbitrary in relation to the goods concerned. According to the appellant, the word “OFFER” may be a common English word, but in relation to alcoholic beverages it does not directly describe the goods and can operate as a source identifier.
The Registrar defended the refusal by contending that the word “OFFER” is an ordinary English word lacking distinctiveness and that a brief order is not bad in law if it reflects application of mind. The respondent relied on precedents dealing with generic, laudatory, or common expressions to argue that such terms cannot be monopolised without proof of secondary meaning, especially where they are commonly used in trade.
