A composite trademark cannot be refused registration by isolating a single component.

Tregum Remedies Private Limited applied to register the composite word mark “THE SKIN COMPANY” in Class 3.

The Registry’s examination report raised objections under Sections 9(1)(b) and 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The appellant responded that the mark should be assessed as a whole and that it did not claim exclusive rights in any individual word.

The Registry nevertheless refused registration, referring to lack of distinctiveness under Section 9(1)(a) and similarity to earlier marks under Section 11(1).

The appellant appealed, challenging both the reasoning and the substantive grounds for refusal.

1. Whether the refusal order was unsustainable for failing to give case-specific reasons and address the appellant’s response to the examination objections.

2. Whether “THE SKIN COMPANY,” assessed as a composite mark, was liable to refusal under Sections 9(1) or 11(1) of the Act.

Under Section 9(1), a mark may be refused if it lacks distinctive character or falls within the statutory grounds concerning descriptive marks.

Under Section 11(1), registration may be refused where the identity or similarity of the proposed mark to an earlier mark, together with the relevant goods or services, gives rise to a likelihood of confusion, including association.

The Court applied the principle that a composite mark should be assessed as a whole and should not be dissected by isolating a single word.

It also required the Registry’s decision to give reasons responsive to the application and the objections raised.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The impugned order did not explain whether the proposed mark was identical to, or deceptively similar to, the cited marks, and its generic reasoning did not address the appellant’s response.

The Court found this showed non-application of mind.

On the merits, it held that the Section 9 objection could not be sustained by isolating “SKIN” from the composite mark “THE SKIN COMPANY”.

It also found no room for confusion under Section 11(1) when the proposed mark was considered as a whole, noting that the Registry had not adequately specified the basis for finding identity or deceptive similarity.

It directed the Registry to advertise the application in the Trade Marks Journal under Section 20(1) read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, and thereafter decide the application in accordance with law.

No costs were ordered.