M/S Epicurean Hospitality Vs Union of India & Anr.

This is a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 seeking issuance of writ, order or directions of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned Examination Report dated 20.02.2026 passed by the respondent no.2/ Registrar of Trade Marks.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to page 47 of the petition which is the impugned Examination Report dated 20.02.2026.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while the Examination Report does not indicate any objection at all apart from only specifying the “Objected Class:30,43”. He states that other than this there is no objection raised so far as the other parameters are concerned. He further submits that there is no clarification as to what is the nature of objection in Class 30 and 43 of the trade mark application required to be answered. He further submits that without any substantial reason or objection, the Examination Report states that the application is liable to be refused.

¶17

W.P.(C)-IPD 13/2026 Page 1 of 6

¶18

This is a digitally signed order.

¶19

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:36:51

¶20

Further, he also submits that out of the three cited marks, two cited marks are abandoned or expired. Thus, there is no sustainable objection on which the Examination Report states that the application is liable to be refused. He states that the Examination Report is unsustainable in law, since it does not clearly specify as to what is the nature of objection actually raised.

¶21

Per contra , Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC submits that though the objection as to Class is mentioned as 30, 43 has been raised, yet it appears that the objection raised is in the respect of the provision of Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which can be answered by the petitioner while filing its reply to the said Examination Report. Ms. Raman, learned CGSC also states that the petition is premature and the petitioner has enough opportunity to answer the objections in its response.

¶22

The controversy involved in the present case is only in respect of as to whether any clear objection has been raised by the Trade Marks Registry in the impugned Examination Report.

¶23

It would be appropriate to extract the impugned Examination Report hereunder:

¶24

W.P.(C)-IPD 13/2026 Page 2 of 6

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:36:51

¶27

W.P.(C)-IPD 13/2026 Page 3 of 6

¶28

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:36:51

¶29

W.P.(C)-IPD 13/2026 Page 4 of 6

¶30

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:36:51

¶31

(emphasis supplied)

¶32

It is to be noted that so far as the columns i.e., “Formality Examination”, “Substantive Examination”, “Prohibition Under Section” and “Other Objection/Requirement/Conditions/Restrictions” are concerned, the Trade Mark Registry has not even raised a single objection. Whereas, when it comes to the objection to be raised so far as the Class of goods is concerned, other than mentioning the Class of goods i.e., 30 and 43, there is no reference to any Section or any other objection in particular, per se . Apart from that, the only other parameter that the Examination Report specified is regarding “Additional String to Search” against which the Trade Marks Registry has specified ‘By WordMark Search and Search String is %DOUGH%’. Other than that, the Trade Mark Registry has also enumerated three registered Trade Marks as cited marks.

¶33

W.P.(C)-IPD 13/2026 Page 5 of 6

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:36:51

¶36

It is apparent from the perusal of the Examination Report that the petitioner is not put to exactly what is the objection or the nature of the objection that the petitioner is required to answer. In that view of the matter, it would be impossible for the petitioner to construe as to whether the objection is under Section 11 or any other provision of the Act.

¶37

When any Examination Report is generated, it is expected that the objections which are raised are set out clearly so as to enable the party to respond in the same clarity which the party would understand.

¶38

From the perusal of the impugned Examination Report, it is not clear as to what is the exact provision under which the objection has been raised. Except to state as a conclusion that the application is liable to be refused, the grounds of the objections are not clear.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the impugned Examination Report is quashed and set aside.

¶40

However, the Trade Marks Registry is permitted to re-issue a fresh Examination Report within four weeks from date with an advance copy thereof to the petitioner within one week thereafter.

¶41

This Court has not rendered any opinion on the merits of the matter except to make observations regarding the lack of clarity of objections in the Examination Report dated 20.02.2026.

¶42

The rights and contentions of the petitioner shall remain reserved.

¶43

The reply of the petitioner to objections, if raised, shall also be decided and disposed of expeditiously.

¶44

The petition is disposed of alongwith with all pending applications in above terms with no order as to costs.

¶45

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶46

APRIL 7, 2026/ Sumit

¶47

W.P.(C)-IPD 13/2026 Page 6 of 6

¶48

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/04/2026 at 13:36:51

M/S Epicurean Hospitality v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Epicurean Hospitality v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs Suun Ayurveda P. Ltd. & Ors.

Monsanto Technology Llc Vs Controller of Patents

Jyothy Labs Limited Vs Gautam Kumar & Anr.

Bothara Agro Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Pankaj Jain & Anr.

Dassault Systemes Solidworks Corporation & Anr. Vs Zoneonne Venture Private Limited & Anr.

Shubham Goldiee Masale Pvt. Ltd. Vs Jai Shiv Oil Industries and Anr.