ZOTA HEALTHCARE LIMITED v. REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS

Factual and Procedural Background

Zota Healthcare Limited applied for the trademark "DAVABHARAT GENERIC PHARMACY" in Class 30 (Application No. 6195703) on 24/11/2023. An Examination Report raising an objection under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was issued on 06/12/2023. The appellant submitted a detailed reply with supporting documents on 11/12/2023. The Registrar of Trade Marks refused the application by order dated 01/08/2025. The appellant filed a civil appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 challenging the Registrar's order. The High Court (Niral R. Mehta, J.) delivered an oral order on 11/03/2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Registrar erred in refusing registration of the mark "DAVABHARAT GENERIC PHARMACY" under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the ground of non-distinctiveness.
2. Whether the Registrar failed to consider the appellant's reply and supporting documents submitted on 11/12/2023 before refusing the application.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant submitted that it applied for the mark by Application No. 6195703 and filed a detailed reply with supporting documents on 11/12/2023.
• The appellant contended that the Registrar refused the application without considering that reply.

Respondent's Arguments

• The respondent (Registrar) justified refusal under Section 9(1)(a) on the ground that the mark is non-distinctive, consisting of two commonly used words "DAVA" and "BHARAT".

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court considered submissions of both parties and observed that the impugned order was non-speaking regarding why the appellant's reply was not considered. On that basis the Court concluded that the Registrar's order could not stand without fresh consideration. The Court therefore quashed the impugned order and remanded the matter for rehearing from the stage of hearing, directing the Registrar to consider the appellant's reply and to pass a reasoned order. The Court expressly refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the trademark's distinctiveness.

Holding and Implications

The impugned order dated 01.08.2025 is quashed and set aside; the appeal is partly allowed to that extent.

Consequences: The matter is remanded to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Geographical Indication and Copyright, Ahmedabad for fresh consideration from the stage of hearing. The Registrar is directed to conclude the hearing and pass a reasoned order within three months from receipt of this order. The Court did not decide the merits and gave no opinion on substantive issues; the Registrar must decide the case independently and in accordance with law. No new precedent was set by this order beyond the remand and directions given.