The Delhi High Court has recently quashed the trademark registrar’s order rejecting ADS Spirits‘ application to register the mark “OFFER” for alcoholic beverages, ruling that the registrar wrongly applied a legally non-existent “uniqueness” test instead of the statutory “distinctiveness” standard under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and remanding the matter for fresh consideration within four months.
“I am unable to discern the concept of ‘uniqueness’ in the statutory provision and therefore, as the Appellant rightly flags, a wrong test was applied by the Respondent to determine if the mark could be registered,” the court said.
In a single judge bench order, Justice Jyoti Singh held that the impugned order suffered from two independent legal infirmities. First, the order was non-speaking and cryptic, as it failed to engage with ADS Spirits’ reply to the examination report, its additional submissions, and a list of 31 existing registered marks containing the word “OFFER” (such as OFFER SALE, offerME, and OFFERUP) that the appellant had cited to demonstrate the mark’s registrability.
The Court emphasised that as a quasi-judicial authority, the Registrar is bound to consider all material and case law placed on record and pass a reasoned order, and failure to do so amounts to an abdication of quasi-judicial function.
Secondly the Court found that Section 9(1)(a) bars registration only of marks “devoid of distinctive character,” a concept distinct from “uniqueness,” which has no basis in the statute; the Registrar had erroneously refused registration on the ground that “OFFER” lacked uniqueness because it is commonly used while seeking discounts.
“Respondent has applied a wrong test for determining whether the mark OFFER was registrable inasmuch as Section 9(1)(a) of 1999 Act does not recognise or require the applied mark to be ‘unique’ and proscribes registration of a mark which is devoid of distinctive character,” the bench said.
The Court clarified that distinctiveness must be assessed relative to the specific goods for which registration is sought, since a word may be generic in one trade context but arbitrary in another, and that “offer” and “discount” are not synonymous since an offer is merely a proposal to transact, not necessarily a price reduction.
ADS Spirits contended that the mark “OFFER” was arbitrary and inherently distinctive for alcoholic beverages, as consumers would perceive it as a brand identifier on a liquor bottle rather than an incomplete promotional statement. It was also argued that the Registrar had overlooked the appellant’s citation of prior registrations using “OFFER” with prefixes or suffixes.
The Registrar’s counsel defended the order, arguing that no elaborate reasoning was legally required and that “OFFER” was rightly refused since it is commonly invoked in commercial contexts to solicit discounts, relying on rulings such as Venus Worldwide Entertainment (on the mark KHILADI), IHHR Hospitality (on ANANDA), and the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Pernod Ricard v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, which held that laudatory or generic terms like “PRIDE” in the liquor industry cannot be monopolised if the proof of secondary meaning is missing.
“Learned counsel for the Respondent has relied on judgements to justify the impugned order. I am of the view that none of them are applicable for the simple reason that Respondent has not applied the correct test under Section 9(1)(a),” the court said.
ADS Spirits is a part of the ADS Group of liquor companies known for brands like Royal Green Whisky and Double Blue Whisky. The company filed a trademark seeking registration of “OFFER” in Class 33 for “alcoholic beverages, except beers; alcoholic preparations for making beverages,” on a “proposed to be used” basis. The Registrar’s Examination Report objected under Section 9(1)(a), and despite the appellant filing detailed replies and attending multiple hearings between 2024 and 2025, the Registrar passed an order on 30 October 2025 refusing registration, prompting the present appeal under Section 91 of the Act.
“Accordingly, the impugned order dated 30.10.2025 is quashed and set aside. Respondent is directed to reconsider the application bearing no. 5514779 on 03.07.2022 filed by the Appellant for registration of the mark OFFER in Class 33 for “alcoholic beverages, except beers; alcoholic preparations for making beverages”. The decision shall be taken within four months from today after granting opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and considering the replies/documents on record,” the bench held.
ADS Spirits was represented by a legal team from Ajay Sahni & Associates, comprising Ankit Sahni, Kritika Sahni, Chirag Ahluwalia, Mohit Maru, and Aparna Sharma.
The Registrar of Trade Marks was represented by SPC Gaurav Barathi, along with government pleader Vikrant Malwal and advocate Chirantan Priyadarshan.
