KFC won’t have any unique rights within the phrase ‘Chicken’: Delhi HC
3 min readExpress News Service
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has clarified that American quick meals restaurant chain KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) won’t have any unique rights within the phrase ‘Chicken’ whereas coping with its software for registration of trademark ‘Chicken Zinger.’
With the clarification, the single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula requested the Trademark Registry to think about KFC’s software in Class 29 that offers with the registration of marks for meat, fish, poultry, and sport merchandise.
The court docket was listening to the plea by the favored meals outlet in opposition to December 2018 orders handed by the senior examiner, whereby the registration was denied underneath the Trademark Act noting that the mark ‘CHICKEN ZINGER’ is “descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services to which it is applied.”
Notably, ‘Chicken Zinger’ has registration underneath trademark Class 30, which pertaining to auxiliaries that enhance the flavour of meals. Products like espresso, tea, sugar, namkeen, chocolate, rice, flour, cereals, bread, honey, salt, spices, ice, sauces, and so forth. are all included on this part.
KFC can be having registrations of different logos together with Zinger, Hot Zinger, Paneer Zinger, Zinger Festival and Tower Zinger.
It was noticed by the court docket that the topic mark includes of two phrases – “CHICKEN” and “ZINGER”. The dictionary which means of “ZINGER” is “a thing outstandingly good of its kind” or “a wisecrack; punch line” or “a surprise question; an unexpected turn of events”.
The order mentioned using “ZINGER” together with “CHICKEN” doesn’t draw an prompt reference to the form of items/ providers and should at finest, be thought of suggestive.
Further, Appellant (KFC) holds registration of the phrase marks “ZINGER” and “PANEER ZINGER” at school 29 itself, it was famous.
The order additionally said that “Objection under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act seems to be based on the use of the word “CHICKEN”, over which, Appellant can’t have any exclusivity and no such declare is being asserted.
In its order, the court docket additionally put aside the 2018 orders and requested
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has clarified that American quick meals restaurant chain KFC (Kentucky Fried Chicken) won’t have any unique rights within the phrase ‘Chicken’ whereas coping with its software for registration of trademark ‘Chicken Zinger.’
With the clarification, the single-judge bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula requested the Trademark Registry to think about KFC’s software in Class 29 that offers with the registration of marks for meat, fish, poultry, and sport merchandise.
The court docket was listening to the plea by the favored meals outlet in opposition to December 2018 orders handed by the senior examiner, whereby the registration was denied underneath the Trademark Act noting that the mark ‘CHICKEN ZINGER’ is “descriptive of characteristics of the goods or services to which it is applied.”
Notably, ‘Chicken Zinger’ has registration underneath trademark Class 30, which pertaining to auxiliaries that enhance the flavour of meals. Products like espresso, tea, sugar, namkeen, chocolate, rice, flour, cereals, bread, honey, salt, spices, ice, sauces, and so forth. are all included on this part.
KFC can be having registrations of different logos together with Zinger, Hot Zinger, Paneer Zinger, Zinger Festival and Tower Zinger.
It was noticed by the court docket that the topic mark includes of two phrases – “CHICKEN” and “ZINGER”. The dictionary which means of “ZINGER” is “a thing outstandingly good of its kind” or “a wisecrack; punch line” or “a surprise question; an unexpected turn of events”.
The order mentioned using “ZINGER” together with “CHICKEN” doesn’t draw an prompt reference to the form of items/ providers and should at finest, be thought of suggestive.
Further, Appellant (KFC) holds registration of the phrase marks “ZINGER” and “PANEER ZINGER” at school 29 itself, it was famous.
The order additionally said that “Objection under Section 9(1)(b) of the Act seems to be based on the use of the word “CHICKEN”, over which, Appellant can’t have any exclusivity and no such declare is being asserted.
In its order, the court docket additionally put aside the 2018 orders and requested
