COURTKUTCHEHRY SPECIAL ON TRADEMARKS LAWS
Delhi High Court Says ‘Tiger’ Is Generic: Trademark Rules in India Explained
Court clarifies that common words cannot be monopolized under trademark law
Distinctiveness, originality, and secondary meaning are key criteria for trademark protection
By Our Legal Reporter
New Delhi: January 12, 2026:
In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking exclusive rights over the word “Tiger”, holding that it is a generic and common term used widely across industries. The case, Mayank Jain v. Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd., involved a dispute over agricultural implements where the plaintiff sought to restrain competitors from using the word “Tiger” in branding.
Also Read: Capital Gains Tax on Inherited Property: What Families Must Know Before Selling Homes in India
Justice Tejas Karia observed that words like “Tiger” and “Brand” are incapable of exclusive ownership because they are publici juris (belonging to the public) and common to trade. The ruling reinforces the principle that trademarks must be distinctive and not merely descriptive or generic.
Trademark Rules in India
Trademark law in India is governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999. The Act provides protection to marks that distinguish goods or services of one entity from another.
Key Criteria for Trademark Registration
- Distinctiveness
- The mark must be capable of distinguishing goods/services of one trader from another.
- Invented words, unique logos, or coined terms are more likely to qualify.
- Non-Generic Nature
- Common words used in everyday language (e.g., “Tiger,” “Best,” “Super”) cannot be monopolized.
- Generic terms remain free for public use.
- Non-Descriptive
- Marks that merely describe the quality, purpose, or nature of goods (e.g., “Sweet” for sugar) are not registrable.
- Secondary Meaning
- If a descriptive or generic word has acquired distinctiveness through long use (e.g., “Apple” for computers), it may qualify.
- The burden of proof lies on the applicant to show consumer association.
- Non-Deceptive and Legal Compliance
- Marks must not mislead consumers or violate existing laws.
- They cannot include prohibited or offensive terms.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Bars Victims from Filing Second Appeal Against Acquittal
Court’s Observations in the ‘Tiger’ Case
- The plaintiff failed to show that “Tiger” had acquired secondary meaning uniquely identifying his products.
- Evidence showed widespread use of “Tiger” across industries, from food products to machinery.
- The Court held that allowing monopoly over such a word would unfairly restrict competition.
This ruling aligns with earlier judgments where courts refused protection for generic terms like “Yatra” (for travel services) and laudatory expressions like “Super” or “Best.”
Impact of the Judgment
For Businesses
- Companies must focus on unique branding rather than relying on common words.
- Invented words, distinctive logos, and creative combinations are safer choices.
For Consumers
- Prevents monopolization of everyday language.
- Ensures fair competition and wider choices in the market.
For Legal Practice
- Reinforces judicial consistency in rejecting generic marks.
- Encourages applicants to provide strong evidence of distinctiveness.
Also Read: Supreme Court Clarifies Companies Act: Section 448 Must Be Read with Section 447
Wider Context of Trademark Law in India
India’s courts have consistently emphasized that trademarks are not meant to privatize common language. Together, these rulings strengthen the principle that distinctiveness is the cornerstone of trademark protection.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling that “Tiger” is a generic word incapable of trademark protection is a milestone in Indian trademark jurisprudence. It underscores that only distinctive, original, and non-generic marks can be registered and protected.
For businesses, the lesson is clear: invest in creative branding that sets products apart, rather than attempting to monopolize common words. For consumers, the ruling ensures that everyday language remains free for all, preserving competition and choice.
GEO-Friendly Keywords
- Delhi High Court Tiger trademark ruling
- Trademark rules in India explained
- Criteria for trademark registration India
- Generic words trademark law India
- Distinctiveness in trademark protection India
- Mayank Jain v. Atulya Discs case Delhi HC
- Trade Marks Act 1999 India rules
- Secondary meaning trademark India
- Common words cannot be trademarked India
- Delhi HC ruling on Tiger trademark
Also Read: ITAT Chandigarh Rules Section 269SS Not Applicable to One-Time Cash Sale Payments