Madras High Court: a trademark examiner can't dissect a composite mark to refuse registration

Tregum Remedies applied to register 'THE SKIN COMPANY' as a trademark for cosmetic goods. The Trademark Registry refused the application, citing lack of distinctiveness under Section 9(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and deceptive similarity to existing marks like 'SKINN' under Section 11(1). Allowing the appeal on 9 October 2026, Justice P.B. Balaji held that 'THE SKIN COMPANY' is a composite mark, three words taken together, and it is not open to a trademark examiner or a court to dissect a composite mark and refuse registration by focusing on a single word within it, such as 'SKIN,' in isolation.

The Court also found the refusal order itself defective: it did not explain whether the mark was identical to, or merely deceptively similar to, the cited marks, two legally distinct grounds that cannot be clubbed together, and it ignored the applicant's detailed response to the Registry's own examination report, showing non-application of mind. The order of refusal was set aside, with a direction that the mark be advertised in the Trade Marks Journal, after which anyone may still oppose its registration at that stage.