‘Offer, discount not same’: Delhi High Court cancels liquor company’s trademark rejection

The order added that “clearly, in the present case, the respondent (Trademark authority) has failed to enter into the exercise of determining whether the applied mark OFFER is distinctive qua (distinctive quality) alcoholic beverages.” 

Justice Jyoti Singh heard a trademark matter for registration of the term “OFFER”.

Fastest growing liquor empire, trademark rejection

ADS Spirits Pvt Ltd. had challenged an order dated October 30, 2025, passed by the Trademark authority rejecting their registration of the mark OFFER in Class 33 (for alcoholic beverages)  invoking Section 9(1)(a) (devoid of any distinctive character) of the 1999 Act. 

The ADS Group of companies, which is one of the fastest-growing liquor conglomerates in the Indian alcohol beverage space and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, trading and selling liquor products for more than a decade, has built a stellar reputation and goodwill in the country liquor and Indian Made Foreign Liquor market segments. 

It has launched a range of spirit brands to cater to various price brackets in the Indian market and is the creator of iconic brands like Royal Green Whisky, Double Blue Whisky, Episode Gold Whisky, High Impact Deluxe Whisky, etc. 

It was stated that being an honest and bona fide adopter of the trademark OFFER in respect of alcoholic beverages and alcoholic preparations for making beverages and to secure statutory rights in the mark, they had filed a Trademark application. It was submitted that the mark is arbitrary and inherently distinctive and capable of distinguishing the goods of the ADS Spirits from the goods of others. 

Advocates Ankit Sahni, Kritika Sahni, Chirag Ahluwalia, Mohit Maru and Aparna Sharma, counsel for the ADS Spirits, urged that the order was illegal, perverse, non-speaking and hence, untenable in law. 

Senior counsel Gaurav Barathi, for the trademark authority, argued that the word ‘OFFER’ finds its usage while demanding a discount on purchase of any goods or services and being devoid of ‘uniqueness’ cannot be registered, owing to a statutory proscription.

‘Reconsider OFFER term registration’

The court held that the trademark authority applied the wrong legal test by treating “OFFER” as unregistrable because it was not unique. It clarified that the law requires a mark to be distinctive, not unique. It said that “offer” and “discount” are not synonymous; even a common English term can be registered as a mark if it distinguishes one trader’s goods from another’s.

The court set aside the earlier order passed by the trademark authority and directed them to reconsider the application for registration of the mark “OFFER” for alcoholic beverages after examining whether the mark is distinctive for such products. It directed them to form a decision within four months.