Trademark Publication Under Section 20: Ads Spirits v. Registrar (Delhi HC, 2026)

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has drawn a sharp procedural line between setting aside a refusal and directing publication in trademark appellate practice. In Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks (LPA 688/2026, decided 15 September 2026, before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora sitting with another Hon'ble Judge of the Court), the LPA against Justice Jyoti Singh's order in C.A.(COMM. IPD-TM) 8/2026 (decided 21 July 2026) was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to examine the mark "OFFER" for Class 33 alcoholic beverages afresh under the correct Section 9(1)(a) standard of distinctiveness.

The case turns on a single doctrinal point: where the Single Judge has set aside the Registrar's refusal not because the mark is registrable, but because the refusal order itself was procedurally infirm the appellate court cannot under Section 20 read with Rule 39 mandamus publication until the Registrar completes the remanded examination on merits.

This distinction matters for alcohol-beverage brands and trademark practitioners who routinely conflate two reliefs: quashing a refusal order under Section 18(4), and compelling acceptance followed by Section 20 publication. Ads Spirits v. Registrar is now the cleanest recent Delhi HC statement of when each remedy applies.

The Refusal and the First Appeal: How "OFFER" Got to the Division Bench

Ads Spirits Pvt. Ltd. applied for the word mark "OFFER" in Class 33 of the Nice Classification, the class covering alcoholic beverages except beers. The Registrar of Trade Marks returned an examination report and ultimately refused registration solely under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the absolute ground for marks lacking distinctive character. The refusal order applied a "uniqueness" test, treating the mark as impermissible because it was susceptible of ordinary descriptive or promotional use.

Ads Spirits challenged the refusal before the Delhi High Court not in writ jurisdiction, but by way of a statutory appeal under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which vests an appeal route from orders of the Registrar to the relevant High Court. The appeal was registered as C.A.(COMM. IPD-TM) 8/2026 and heard and disposed of by Justice Jyoti Singh on 21 July 2026.

Justice Jyoti Singh's Order: Quashing on Two Procedural Faults

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed Ads Spirits' Section 91 appeal and set aside the Registrar's refusal. The judgment did not adjudicate registrability. It rested, instead, on two procedural defects in the Registrar's order-first, that the order was a non-speaking order that did not record reasons for finding the mark non-distinctive; second, that the Registrar had applied a "uniqueness" standard at the Section 9(1)(a) stage, in place of the statutory test of distinctiveness which the statute requires.

Because both grounds went to the validity of the refusal order rather than to the inherent registrability of "OFFER", Justice Jyoti Singh did not direct the Registrar to accept and publish the mark. She remanded the application to the Registrar for examination afresh under the correct Section 9(1)(a) standard.

The LPA: Why Ads Spirits Wanted More Than a Remand

From Ads Spirits' perspective, the Single Judge's order did too little. The appellant contended in LPA 688/2026 that once the Registrar's refusal was held to be unsustainable on the grounds identified, the only intellectually honest relief was a direction to advertise the mark under Section 20 read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 bypassing the remanded examination altogether.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, writing for the Division Bench, declined that contention and dismissed the LPA. The Registrar was left to take the matter back to examination under Section 18(4) read with Section 9(1)(a), applying the distinctiveness test rather than the "uniqueness" test.

The Holding: A Mandamus to Publish Cannot Pre-empt Remanded Examination

The Division Bench's reasoning in LPA 688/2026 is built on four propositions.

First, Section 20 publication of an accepted application in the Trade Marks Journal is contingent on the Registrar first recording acceptance under Section 18(4). A securities posture that prohibits judicial direction of publication before acceptance is overstated; Section 91 appellate jurisdiction repeatedly affirms the court's power to direct acceptance and advertisement where the mark is on its face inherently distinctive and the Registrar's refusal is untenable on the record.

Second, that appellate power presupposes the court being in a position to record acceptance on merits. In Ads Spirits, Justice Jyoti Singh's order did not record that the mark was inherently distinctive. It recorded that the Registrar's refusal order was procedurally unsound non-speaking and based on the wrong legal test. The remand flowed from those procedural errors, not from a finding of registrability.

Third, because acceptance was never recorded, the predicate for Section 20 publication had not been built up, and mandamus to advertise under Section 20 read with Rule 39 could not issue in advance of the Registrar's corrected examination. The Division Bench refused to convert a procedural vindication into a substantive acceptance the appellant had not earned.

Fourth, the Registrar, as the statutory authority tasked with Section 18(4) examination, must complete the fresh inquiry using the distinctiveness standard. A court cannot pre-empt that inquiry simply because the prior refusal was struck down.

The LPA was accordingly dismissed.

The Doctrinal Boundary the Ruling Preserves

Indian trademark appellate practice contains two recognizable scenarios in which the High Court directs publication.

In the first, the appellate court undertakes its own Section 9(1)(a) assessment of an inherently distinctive mark, finds the Registrar's refusal insupportable, and directs acceptance followed by Section 20 publication. Mandamus in this branch of the case law is not contested.

In the second, the appellate court finds procedural defects in the Registrar's order a non-speaking order, an incorrect legal test, an unexplained reliance on inadmissible material and sets the refusal aside without making its own registrability finding. This is the scenario Ads Spirits falls into. In this branch, remand for fresh examination under Section 18(4) is the proper remedy, and mandamus to publish under Section 20 is not available until the Registrar records acceptance after hearing the fresh examination.

The Division Bench preserved this boundary. The court did not say courts lack power to direct publication. The court said this appellant's case was not one in which that power could be exercised, because the Single Judge had not pronounced on registrability.

Where the "Uniqueness" vs "Distinctiveness" Error Lands

The Registrar's most consequential mistake in Ads Spirits was approaching Section 9(1)(a) as a "uniqueness" inquiry rather than as the statutory question of whether the mark is capable of distinguishing the applicant's goods from those of others. "Uniqueness" imported an absolute novelty standard foreign to Section 9(1)(a) distinctiveness under the Act is a relative, source-identifying standard, not a uniqueness threshold.

Justice Jyoti Singh's identification of that error is the analytical spine of her Section 91 order. The Division Bench's LPA ruling did not disturb that point; the matter goes back to the Registrar equipped with the correct legal standard, not with a direction to publish.

For liquor-brand owners whose applications have been refused on the basis of examiner reasoning that confuses "uniqueness", "novelty", "inventiveness", or other patent-style thresholds with the statutory distinctiveness test, Ads Spirits is now an obvious authority on the appellate route both for procedural challenge where the Registrar's reasoning rests on an incorrect standard, and for the limits on what such a procedural win can recover.

Practical Takeaways for Trademark Applicants, Brand Owners, and Practitioners

For applicants facing a Section 18(4) refusal grounded in a misapplied test, the Section 91 appeal route remains open. Where the Registrar's order is non-speaking or rests on an incorrect Section 9(1)(a) standard, quashing on procedural grounds is achievable but the relief must be characterised as remand, not acceptance.

For applicants whose marks are inherently distinctive and whose refusal orders are untenable on the merits, mandamus to accept and publish under Section 20 read with Rule 39 is still available in Section 91 appellate practice. The doctrinal ceiling is the deficient record, not the court's power.

For Class 33 applicants in particular, the Registrar's Section 9(1)(a) allocation against descriptive or commonplace English words remains robust. Where the Registrar reaches distinctiveness on the correct standard, an appellate win on procedural grounds will still leave the substantive question alive on remand.

For trademark practitioners, calibrate relief claimed specifically. An appellate win that quashes a refusal on procedural grounds is not the same as a finding of registrability, and pleadings that overreach on the second will be pared back on the LPA.

For in-house IP teams at liquor brands, the burden of demonstrating distinctiveness at examination is unchanged. The Registrar's Section 18(4) examination under the corrected standard remains the operative test.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Division Bench decide in Ads Spirits v. Registrar (LPA 688/2026)?

The Division Bench, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora sitting with another Hon'ble Judge of the Delhi High Court, dismissed Ads Spirits' Letters Patent Appeal against Justice Jyoti Singh's order in C.A.(COMM. IPD-TM) 8/2026. The Bench held that where the Single Judge had set aside the Registrar's refusal solely for procedural defects and remanded for fresh Section 18(4) examination under Section 9(1)(a), no mandamus to advertise under Section 20 read with Rule 39 could issue before the Registrar completed that remanded examination.

What was the original ground of refusal, and what statutory section did it invoke?

The Registrar refused registration of "OFFER" in Class 33 solely under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 the absolute ground relating to marks lacking distinctive character. The Registrar did not invoke Section 11 relative grounds in the refusal order. The Section 9(1)(a) determination was, however, infected by the application of a "uniqueness" test rather than the statutory distinctiveness standard.

Why did Justice Jyoti Singh set aside the Registrar's refusal in C.A.(COMM. IPD-TM) 8/2026?

Justice Jyoti Singh identified two procedural defects in the Registrar's refusal order: first, the order was non-speaking and did not adequately record reasons for finding the mark non-distinctive; and second, the Registrar had applied a "uniqueness" standard at the Section 9(1)(a) stage instead of the statutory distinctiveness test. Because both grounds went to the validity of the order rather than to the registrability of "OFFER", the matter was remanded for fresh examination rather than directed to Section 20 publication.

Can a High Court direct acceptance and publication of a trademark?

Yes in Section 91 appellate practice, where the appellate court independently assesses whether a mark is inherently distinctive and finds the Registrar's refusal insupportable on merits, mandamus to accept and publish under Section 20 read with Rule 39 is regularly granted. The Ads Spirits ruling does not disturb that branch of the case law; it preserves the corollary that where acceptance has not been recorded, Section 20 publication cannot be directioned in advance.

Why was a publication direction refused in the Ads Spirits case specifically?

The Single Judge did not record acceptance and did not find "OFFER" inherently distinctive. Her order quashed the refusal on procedural grounds non-speaking order plus the wrong legal standard and remanded for fresh examination. Without a registrability finding on which to ground Section 20 publication, the Division Bench declined to convert a procedural vindication into a substantive acceptance.

What is the statutory flow from filing to registration in trademark prosecution?

Filing on Form TM-A under Section 18(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 → examination by the Registrar under Section 18(4), which culminates in either acceptance of the application or refusal on grounds including those under Section 9 or Section 11 → publication of the accepted application in the Trade Marks Journal under Section 20 read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 → four-month opposition window under Section 21 read with Form TM-O and Rule 42 → registration and issue of certificate under Section 23 in the absence of a successful opposition.

What is the difference between "distinctiveness" and "uniqueness" in trademark law?

"Distinctiveness" under Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a relative, source-identifying standard the capacity of the mark to distinguish the applicant's goods from those of others. "Uniqueness" is an absolute novelty-style standard that has no statutory home in Section 9(1)(a) and renders the Registrar's order vulnerable on appellate review for misapplication of the legal test.

Key Terms Explained

Section 18, Trade Marks Act, 1999 — governs the filing of a trademark application (Form TM-A) and the Registrar's examination powers. Examination is conducted under Sub-section (4), which empowers the Registrar to accept the application absolutely or subject to conditions, modifications, or amendments, or to refuse registration after giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard.

Section 18(4), Trade Marks Act, 1999 — the operative examination provision. Acceptance or refusal under Section 9 (absolute grounds) or Section 11 (relative grounds) is recorded at this stage. The Registrar's Section 18(4) determination is what triggers or blocks Section 20 publication downstream.

Section 20, Trade Marks Act, 1999 — mandates publication of an accepted application in the Trade Marks Journal. Read with Rule 39 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. Publication opens the four-month opposition window for third parties.

Section 21, Trade Marks Act, 1999 — provides for opposition. Read with Form TM-O and Rule 42 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. The four-month window runs from the date of Section 20 publication.

Section 23, Trade Marks Act, 1999 — the registration provision. Once Section 20 publication has occurred and the opposition window has closed without a successful opposition, the Registrar registers the mark and issues the certificate.

Section 91, Trade Marks Act, 1999 — the appeal route. Provides for an appeal from any order or decision of the Registrar under the Act to the relevant High Court. Appellate remedies under Section 91 include quashing the impugned order on procedural or legal grounds and, where the record permits, directing acceptance followed by Section 20 publication.

Section 9(1)(a), Trade Marks Act, 1999 — the absolute ground of refusal for marks that are devoid of distinctive character. Distinctiveness under this provision is a relative, source-identifying standard, not a uniqueness or novelty test.

Form TM-A — trademark application form, filed under Section 18(1). Each Nice class attracts a separate fee line under Schedule I (natural persons, startups, small entities) and Schedule II (others).

Rule 39, Trade Marks Rules, 2017 — the procedural rule that implements Section 20 publication of an accepted application in the Trade Marks Journal.

Class 33 (Nice Classification) — alcoholic beverages except beers. Frequently subject to Section 9(1)(a) examination on the descriptive character of ordinary English word marks for liquor products.

‍