Animal marks — Puma, Jaguar, Kiwi, the Fevicol elephant — are strong precisely because they’re arbitrary. The trouble starts when two brands claim the same animal. The Jaguar watches fight shows how reputation breaks the tie.
Why animal marks are strong (and contested)
Animal names/representations usually make arbitrary, inherently distinctive marks — unrelated to the product. But their popularity limits choice, and when similar/identical animal marks collide — especially where one owner has a huge reputation — the courts must referee.
The dispute: JAGUAR watches
- Jaguar Cars: its mark is well-known, adopted 1935, first UK registration 1943, Indian registration March 1945, with claimed use on watches since 1983 (backed by invoices).
- Des Montres Jaguar (Switzerland): claimed first adopter for watches (Class 14), earliest Swiss registration Aug 1945, a co-existence agreement across 28 countries, and that “jaguar” is a dictionary word — no monopoly — with Indian use since 1989.
The Registrar — then the IPAB
The Registrar dismissed Jaguar Cars’ opposition (dictionary word, other “Jaguar” marks on the register, watches vs dashboard clocks, the Swiss company’s first Indian use, no Class 14 registration for Jaguar Cars).
On appeal, the IPAB reversed — a strong statement on well-known marks:
- Well-known status needs no Class 14 registration for statutory protection.
- Phenomenal reputation can substitute for actual Indian use — Jaguar Cars filed 1,600 pages (surveys, film appearances, media, tourism).
- Contemporary market realities create confusion and brand association.
- A manufacturing-facility requirement is unsound trademark law.
- Dictionary status does not permit free exploitation of established goodwill across nations.
- International co-existence agreements are of limited relevance under India’s stricter copycat protections.
- Other “jaguar” marks were irrelevant — they belonged to affiliates or faced cancellation.
- Classification is an administrative search tool, “not a fail-proof test to eliminate likely market confusion.”
The takeaways
- Arbitrary animal marks are strong — but a common animal is shared, so pick and clear carefully.
- Well-known reputation is powerful — it can beat a dictionary-word defence, a co-existence agreement, and even a first-in-class rival. (See well-known trademarks.)
- Classes don’t cap confusion — the class system aids searching; it does not, by itself, defeat a confusion claim.
Note: the IPAB was abolished in 2021 (Tribunals Reforms Act); such appeals now go to the High Courts — see our note on patent/IP appeal jurisdiction.
Frequently asked questions
Are animal names good trademarks? Yes — used arbitrarily (unrelated to the product) they are inherently distinctive and strong, though popular animals are widely used.
Can a “dictionary word” animal mark be monopolised? Not freely — but a phenomenal, well-known reputation can prevent others exploiting the goodwill, as the IPAB held for JAGUAR.
Does a co-existence agreement abroad bind India? Not necessarily — the IPAB gave the international co-existence agreement limited weight under India’s protections.
Do different classes prevent confusion? No. Classification is an administrative search tool, not a guarantee against market confusion.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999