ZOTA HELTHCARE LIMITED A COMPANY v. EXAMINER OF TRADE MARKS, TRADE MARKS REGISTRY OFFICE

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Zota Healthcare Limited, filed Trade Mark Application No. 6195705 for the mark "Dava Bharat" in Class 35 on 24/11/2023. An Examination Report raising an objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was issued on 05/12/2023. The appellant submitted a detailed reply with supporting documents on 08/12/2023. The Examiner refused the application by an order dated 09/10/2025. The appellant challenged that refusal by filing the present Civil Appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the High Court of Gujarat.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the impugned refusal dated 09/10/2025 of Trade Mark Application No. 6195705 under Section 9(1)(a) was valid.
2. Whether the Examiner of Trade Marks properly considered the appellant's reply submitted on 08/12/2023 before refusing the application, and if not, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant applied for the mark "Dava Bharat" (Application No. 6195705) in Class 35.
• An objection under Section 9(1)(a) was issued on 05/12/2023.
• The appellant submitted a detailed reply with supporting documents on 08/12/2023.
• The appellant contended that the Examiner refused the application without considering the submitted reply.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Examiner defended the refusal under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark is non-distinctive.
• The Examiner's position was that "davabharat" consists of two commonly used words, "DAVA" and "BHARAT", and is therefore non-distinctive.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the impugned order was non-speaking with respect to why the appellant's reply was not considered. On that basis, rather than adjudicating the substantive distinctiveness issue on merits, the Court found it appropriate to quash and set aside the Examiner's order and remit the matter for fresh consideration. The Court directed that the respondent (Examiner of Trade Marks, Geographical Indication and Copyright, Ahmedabad) re-hear the matter from the stage of hearing, consider the appellant's reply, conclude the hearing and pass a reasoned order within three months from receipt of the Court's order. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits or law, directing the authority to decide independently and strictly in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

The impugned order dated 09.10.2025 is quashed and set aside.

Implications:

• The matter is remanded to the Examiner for fresh consideration from the stage of hearing and for the Examiner to consider the appellant's reply.
• The Examiner must conclude the hearing and pass a reasoned order within three months from receipt of this Court order.
• The Court did not decide the merits or lay down any precedent on the substantive issue of distinctiveness; the authority must decide on merits independently.