Delhi High Court: ‘Tiger’ Is a Generic Word, No Exclusive Trademark Rights
The Delhi High Court has held that the words “Tiger” and “Brand” are common and generic terms and cannot be exclusively owned as trademarks. The Court refused to grant an interim injunction in a trademark dispute involving agricultural implements.
Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the injunction application filed by Mayank Jain, proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog, against Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. and others.
Mahaveer Udyog, established in 1997, manufactures and sells agricultural implements such as disc harrows and tractor-towed harrows. The plaintiff claimed to have adopted the device mark “TIGER GOLD BRAND” in 2010 and stated that the mark was registered in 2023 after continuous use. It was alleged that the defendants later started selling similar products under the mark “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND”, which, according to the plaintiff, amounted to copying and passing off.
The plaintiff argued that the use of the word “Tiger” along with a tiger device misled consumers and diluted its trademark. It sought an injunction on grounds of trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and misrepresentation. Some defendants also claimed intermediary protection under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Rejecting these claims, the Court clearly stated that “Tiger” and “Brand” are generic words commonly used in trade and cannot be monopolised. The Court observed that registration of a device mark does not give exclusive rights over individual, non-distinctive elements like common words.
The Court further noted that the plaintiff failed to show that the word “Tiger” had acquired any secondary meaning exclusively associated with its products. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the Court compared the marks as a whole and found them to be visually and structurally different.
From the perspective of farmers—the relevant consumer group—the Court held that there was no likelihood of confusion. It also concluded that the plaintiff had not been able to establish sufficient goodwill and reputation to support a claim of passing off.
As a result, the Delhi High Court dismissed the injunction application and ruled that the defendants’ use of “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” did not amount to trademark infringement or passing off.
