Full Judgment Text
$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 30 March, 2026
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025
AJP IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aparna Jain and Mr. Ishan Berry,
Advocates.
versus
THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARK DELHI & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC for R-1.
Respondent No. 2 is ex parte .
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 57 of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999 (‘1999 Act’) read with Rule 7 of the Delhi High Court
Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 seeking
cancellation/removal of the mark ‘M FOLD’ (word) bearing Application
No. 6391583 granted in favour of Respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner is stated to be engaged in the business of filter paper,
paper, paper coffee filters, paper tissues and napkins, toilet rolls etc., as also
other household products which it is selling since 2016, through its
predecessor entities and the registered trademarks of the Petitioner are
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 1 of 8
ELLA/
in Class 16 covering the product lineage of tissue
papers etc. The business is carried on extensively through offline as also
online modes on various e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart,
Meesho etc. Respondent No.2 is trading in tissue papers in Class 16.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the mark M FOLD is
merely an abbreviated form of the word ‘Multifold’, which is commonly
used for tissue papers and is inherently descriptive. The term M fold has
been interchangeably used as Multi fold by manufacturers for decades to
specify the category of the product i.e., tissue papers and Petitioner has also
been selling its products under the brand ELLA with product description as
M fold since 2016, which is evident from the invoices placed on record. The
words M fold/Multi fold generally refer to paper products that are folded in
a specific way to allow for easy dispensing and use. The letter ‘M’ typically
denotes a particular folding style, where paper is folded in a way that creates
a series of ‘M’ shaped pleats or folds and this folding style is a standard
practice in the tissue paper industry. Hence, no party can monopolize over
the mark M FOLD being generic and describing the product. Being
descriptive, the mark M FOLD ought not to have been registered owing to
the provisions of Sections 9(1)(a) and (b) and 17(2)(b) of the 1999 Act.
4. It is further urged that Petitioner and other competing brands have
been continuously and extensively selling their products under the
description ‘Multifold’ tissue paper and a simple Google search reveals
various companies selling the products with a description M fold as
follows:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 2 of 8
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 3 of 8
5. It is argued that Petitioner has spent enormous amount of money and
valuable time since 2016 to commence and promote its business through
Amazon and other e-commerce sites and has garnered immense reputation
and goodwill amongst its customers in India owing to quality products sold
under the mark ELLA and descriptor M fold tissues. However, due to the
registration of the mark M FOLD in favour of Respondent No.2, within less
than a year, Amazon has removed the listing of Petitioner’s company
without looking into the fact that Petitioner was selling its goods under its
own registered mark ELLA and M fold was only a trade description.
Respondent No.2 had applied for the mark on 17.04.2024 on ‘proposed to be
used’ basis and Examination Report (‘ER’) was issued on 29.08.2024 and on
23.01.2025, the Registrar of Trade Marks granted registration without
looking into the inherent distinctiveness of the mark owing to which it
cannot serve to distinguish Respondent No.2’s goods from those of the
others. It is also urged that a basic search across several prominent
e-commerce platforms yields results prominently featuring Ella with the
product description M-FOLD of the Petitioner as also listings of several
other players in the field, who are also using M fold as a descriptor, as
follows:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 4 of 8
6. It is argued that the impugned registration is causing unfair restriction
on the business of the Petitioner inasmuch as Petitioner is unable to list its
products on the e-commerce websites owing to complaints by Respondent
No. 2 as registered proprietor of the mark M FOLD, despite the registration
being against law and hence, the Petitioner is the ‘person aggrieved’ under
Section 57(2) of 1999 Act, entitle to seek cancellation of the registration. In
Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions
Pvt. Ltd. and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7841, this Court has held that
English words of common usage which could not belong to any one
proprietor prima facie defeat Plaintiff’s right to claim exclusivity.
Proprietary rights are a sine qua non for a claim to exclusivity to be
sustained and absent proprietary rights over the mark, there can be no
exclusivity. Thus, the impugned registration deserves to be cancelled,
according to the Petitioner.
7. Respondent No. 2 is the contesting Respondent. However, he chose
not to contest the present proceedings despite service of notice and was
proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.12.2025. No steps have been taken
by Respondent No. 2 for recall of the order and/or join the proceedings
thereafter.
8. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC appearing on behalf of Respondent
No. 1 submits that the contention of the Petitioner that the impugned mark is
generic being a mere abbreviation of multi fold is misconceived. Perusal of
authoritative English dictionaries including Cambridge/Collins/Oxford
Dictionaries demonstrates that M FOLD or M-fold is not a recognized
dictionary word and therefore, cannot be classified as descriptive or generic.
At the examination stage, the mark was evaluated as a whole and was found
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 5 of 8
capable of distinguishing the goods of Respondent No. 2. Due process was
followed before registering the mark. Report was issued on 29.08.2024 and
the mark was accepted and advertised in the Trade Marks Journal recording
in the search report that no similar or conflicting marks were found on
record and there was no objection to acceptance. Upon advertisement,
mandatory four month statutory opposition period was allowed and during
this period, from 29.08.2024 to 29.12.2024, neither Petitioner nor any other
party filed Notice of Opposition and hence, on expiry of the statutory period,
Respondent No. 1 was legally bound under Section 23(1) of 1999 Act to
register the trademark and no infirmity can be found with the registration.
9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their
submissions.
10. This petition is filed under Section 57 of 1999 Act for
cancellation/removal of registration of trademark ‘M FOLD’ (WORD)
bearing Application No. 6391583 granted in favour of Respondent No. 2
with other reliefs. Petitioner is the registered proprietor of the marks ELLA/
and is engaged in the business of filter paper, tissue papers,
toilet rolls, paper napkins etc. The trigger for filing the present petition was
when Petitioner’s listing was removed from an e-commerce portal on
29.01.2025 basis the complaint filed by Respondent No. 2 since Petitioner’s
product was listed under its trademark ELLA but with M fold as a descriptor
of its products. The primordial contention of the Petitioner is that M FOLD
is a generic and descriptive mark and ought not to have been registered
owing to absolute bar under Section 9(1) of 1999 Act read with Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 6 of 8
17(2). Petitioner has placed on record several screenshots/search results
which show a number of entities using M fold by way of describing their
product i.e., tissue papers. It is explained that in the concerned industry, the
letter ‘M’ is used to describe the manner in which the paper is folded by
creating ‘M’ shaped pleats or folds and the word M FOLD is only an
abbreviation of ‘Multifold’, which is used across the trade to describe the
product and hence, no party can claim a monopoly on M FOLD.
11. Section 9(1)(a) of 1999 Act provides that trademarks which are
devoid of any distinctive character, that is to say, not capable of
distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another
person cannot be registered i.e., there is an absolute bar for registration of
such a trademark. Similarly, there is an absolute bar in registration of
trademarks, which consist exclusively of marks or indications which may
serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose,
values, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or
rendering of the service or other characteristics of the goods or services,
under Section 9(1)(b). Respondent No. 2 has consciously chosen not to
contest the proceedings and the averments in the petition are deemed to be
admitted.
12. It is rightly pointed out by counsel for the Petitioner that the
impugned mark M FOLD is merely an abbreviated form of multi fold, which
is descriptive in respect of tissue papers since it denotes the folding style of
the papers in a tissue box and as demonstrated by the Petitioner through
documents/screenshots on record word M FOLD is used by several entities
engaged in the concerned business. Petitioner has placed on record Google
search results as also screenshots of e-commerce websites where several
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 7 of 8
entities have used ‘M fold’ alongside their respective trademarks only to
denote and describe the product. The impugned mark is therefore descriptive
to the goods in question and lacks distinctiveness to distinguish the goods of
Respondent No. 2 from goods of others in the field. It is a settled position of
law that no one can claim exclusive rights over generic and/or descriptive
terms/words as this would unlawfully restrict other parties from using such
words. Contention of Respondent No. 1 that laid down procedure for
accepting and advertising the impugned mark was followed and/or there was
no opposition can be of no aid, once it is found that the mark is inherently
descriptive and commonly used in trade.
13. In view of the above, I am of the view that registration granted in
favour of Respondent No. 2 in respect of mark M FOLD is contrary to the
absolute bar under Section 9(1)(a) and (b) of 1999 Act and deserves to be
cancelled.
14. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and Registration bearing
No.6391583 in respect of trademark M FOLD (WORD) granted in favour of
Respondent No. 2 in Class 16 is cancelled. Respondent No. 1 is directed to
remove the trademark from the Register of Trade Marks and rectify the
same for the sake of purity of the Register. The needful shall be done within
two months from today.
15. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
JYOTI SINGH, J
MARCH 30, 2026/AK
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 28/2025 Page 8 of 8