Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate

Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate is grounded in the principle of equity, which prevents a person from asserting contradictory statements or positions to take advantage of two conflicting stances in legal proceedings. It is rooted in the maxim, “allegans contraria non est audiendus,” meaning "a person alleging contradictory statements should not be heard." This principle ensures consistency, fairness, and justice in judicial proceedings. In the domain of trademark law, this doctrine plays a critical role in preserving the integrity of the system and preventing its abuse. Essentially, it functions as a legal version of the idiom, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” conveying the idea that one cannot accept and reject the same fact or situation to gain an unfair advantage.
What is doctrine of approbate and reprobate?
At its core, the terms approbate and reprobate are opposites. Approbate means ‘to accept,’ while reprobate means ‘to reject.’ This principle comes into play in judicial proceedings when a party first accepts certain facts or positions (approbates) and later rejects them (reprobates), especially to gain an advantage over the opposing party. The doctrine originates from Scottish law and is founded upon the core legal principles of estoppel and election.
The Doctrine of Estoppel prevents a party from adopting a stance that contradicts their previous statements or actions, especially if the opposing party has relied upon them to their detriment.
The Doctrine of Election, on the other hand, asserts that once a party has chosen one of two inconsistent or contradictory rights, they cannot later retract from that choice to claim benefits from the other option. Both doctrines are anchored in common law equity and serve to uphold fairness in legal proceedings by ensuring that once a party consciously accepts a statement or situation, they are prevented from later denying its validity.
These doctrines work in tandem to ensure that parties do not derive benefit from contradictory positions, as doing so would undermine the fairness of the judicial process.
Relevance of Approbate and Reprobate in Trademark Law
Trademark law is designed to strike a balance between the interests of trademark owners and the public, ensuring that trademarks function as indicators of source. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate is relevant to trademark disputes, as it ensures that parties maintain consistent and honest representations about the distinctiveness, use, and nature of their trademarks. Below are various scenarios in which the doctrine is applied:
1. Regarding Similarity/Dissimilarity: This doctrine frequently arises when a party, after asserting that its trademark is distinctive and dissimilar from another mark, later contradicts itself by claiming that the marks are similar to obtain an advantage in legal proceedings.
Illustration:
Company A files for the trademark “VividSweets” for confectionery products. During the Trademark examination process, the examiner raises an objection due to an existing mark “VividTreats” owned by Company B. Company A argues that its mark is distinctive and dissimilar to the cited mark. After securing registration, Company A later files at trademark rectification petition, claiming that “VividTreats” is deceptively similar to its own mark and should be removed from the register. This contradictory conduct illustrates the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. A party cannot claim dissimilarity to secure registration and later assert similarity to challenge another’s mark.
Moreover, this principle is also applicable in the case of Parallel Proceedings or Counterblasting. In these cases, a party, after defending its trademark by asserting dissimilarity, files a rectification petition against the same mark, alleging similarity. This tactic is often employed to put pressure on the opponent to abandon their opposition, rather than focusing on the merits of the case.
Caselaw: In Dwijendra Narain Roy v. Joges Chandra De, the Calcutta High Court stated: “It is an elementary rule that a party litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions in Court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to the detriment of his opponent.”
2. Regarding Material Facts: The doctrine prevents parties from altering material facts in different proceedings for their convenience.
Illustration:
Company A applies for the trademark “FreshFruits,” claiming its use since 2019. When opposed by Company D, citing prior use since 2017, Company A shifts its stance and now claims use since 2016. This change in material facts violates the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. A party cannot alter critical facts, such as the date of first use, to fit their defense.
3. Regarding User Claims in Trademark Applications: The doctrine is also relevant when an applicant makes inconsistent claims about the date of first use of the same trademark in different applications.
Illustration:
Company A files two trademark applications:

Word Mark: “EcoBottle” (claimed use since 2022).

Device Mark: Logo of “EcoBottle” (claimed use since 2021).

This presents a clear contradiction, as it is illogical for a device mark to be used before the corresponding word mark. This scenario exemplifies the application of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, as both claims must align for them to be valid.
4. Regarding Generic Marks: This doctrine prevents a party from asserting that a mark is distinctive to secure registration, and later claiming it is generic to avoid infringement claims.
Illustration:
Company Y registers the mark “UltraMax” as a distinctive and coined mark. However, when sued for infringement by Company X, Company Y argues that “UltraMax” is a common, generic term with no exclusive rights. The doctrine bars Company Y from asserting these two contradictory positions — it cannot claim distinctiveness to obtain registration and later assert that the mark is generic.
Caselaw: In Mind Gym Ltd. v. Mindgym Kids Library Pvt. Ltd., the court held that once a defendant sought registration of a trademark based on its distinctiveness, they were estopped from later questioning the validity of that mark in an infringement case. The defendant had raised two contradictory pleas and could not take advantage of both.
5. Regarding Geographical Restrictions: The doctrine applies when a party agrees to geographical restrictions on the use of their trademark during registration but later tries to circumvent such restrictions.
Illustration:
Company B is granted registration for the mark “TeaEssence” with a restriction limiting its use to the state of Rajasthan. Later, Company B attempts to expand its use by applying for nationwide protection without the geographical restriction. The doctrine prevents Company B from violating the territorial limitation they accepted during the registration process.
6. Regarding Conditions Imposed: When a trademark is registered subject to specific conditions, the applicant is prohibited from disregarding or contradicting those conditions later on.
Illustration:
Company B applies for the trademark “BookWorld,” with the condition that it does not claim exclusive rights to the word “Book.” Later, Company B applies for the trademark “BookDepot,” which contradicts the condition imposed in the original registration. This scenario is a violation of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.
Conclusion
The doctrine of approbate and reprobate serves to protect the integrity of trademark law and the judicial system by ensuring that parties act consistently and in good faith. It prevents the abuse of the legal process and reinforces the fairness of the legal system.

The doctrine of approbate and reprobate is grounded in the principle of equity, which prevents a person from asserting contradictory statements or positions to take advantage of two conflicting stances in legal proceedings. It is rooted in the maxim, “allegans contraria non est audiendus,” meaning "a person alleging contradictory statements should not be heard." This principle ensures consistency, fairness, and justice in judicial proceedings. In the domain of trademark law, this doctrine plays a critical role in preserving the integrity of the system and preventing its abuse. Essentially, it functions as a legal version of the idiom, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” conveying the idea that one cannot accept and reject the same fact or situation to gain an unfair advantage.

What is doctrine of approbate and reprobate?

At its core, the terms approbate and reprobate are opposites. Approbate means ‘to accept,’ while reprobate means ‘to reject.’ This principle comes into play in judicial proceedings when a party first accepts certain facts or positions (approbates) and later rejects them (reprobates), especially to gain an advantage over the opposing party. The doctrine originates from Scottish law and is founded upon the core legal principles of estoppel and election.

The Doctrine of Estoppel prevents a party from adopting a stance that contradicts their previous statements or actions, especially if the opposing party has relied upon them to their detriment.

The Doctrine of Election, on the other hand, asserts that once a party has chosen one of two inconsistent or contradictory rights, they cannot later retract from that choice to claim benefits from the other option. Both doctrines are anchored in common law equity and serve to uphold fairness in legal proceedings by ensuring that once a party consciously accepts a statement or situation, they are prevented from later denying its validity.

These doctrines work in tandem to ensure that parties do not derive benefit from contradictory positions, as doing so would undermine the fairness of the judicial process.

Relevance of Approbate and Reprobate in Trademark Law

Trademark law is designed to strike a balance between the interests of trademark owners and the public, ensuring that trademarks function as indicators of source. The doctrine of approbate and reprobate is relevant to trademark disputes, as it ensures that parties maintain consistent and honest representations about the distinctiveness, use, and nature of their trademarks. Below are various scenarios in which the doctrine is applied:

1. Regarding Similarity/Dissimilarity: This doctrine frequently arises when a party, after asserting that its trademark is distinctive and dissimilar from another mark, later contradicts itself by claiming that the marks are similar to obtain an advantage in legal proceedings.

Illustration:

Company A files for the trademark “VividSweets” for confectionery products. During the Trademark examination process, the examiner raises an objection due to an existing mark “VividTreats” owned by Company B. Company A argues that its mark is distinctive and dissimilar to the cited mark. After securing registration, Company A later files at trademark rectification petition, claiming that “VividTreats” is deceptively similar to its own mark and should be removed from the register. This contradictory conduct illustrates the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. A party cannot claim dissimilarity to secure registration and later assert similarity to challenge another’s mark.

Moreover, this principle is also applicable in the case of Parallel Proceedings or Counterblasting. In these cases, a party, after defending its trademark by asserting dissimilarity, files a rectification petition against the same mark, alleging similarity. This tactic is often employed to put pressure on the opponent to abandon their opposition, rather than focusing on the merits of the case.

Caselaw: In Dwijendra Narain Roy v. Joges Chandra De, the Calcutta High Court stated: “It is an elementary rule that a party litigant cannot be permitted to assume inconsistent positions in Court, to play fast and loose, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate to the detriment of his opponent.”

2. Regarding Material Facts: The doctrine prevents parties from altering material facts in different proceedings for their convenience.

Illustration:

Company A applies for the trademark “FreshFruits,” claiming its use since 2019. When opposed by Company D, citing prior use since 2017, Company A shifts its stance and now claims use since 2016. This change in material facts violates the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. A party cannot alter critical facts, such as the date of first use, to fit their defense.

3. Regarding User Claims in Trademark Applications: The doctrine is also relevant when an applicant makes inconsistent claims about the date of first use of the same trademark in different applications.

Illustration:

Company A files two trademark applications:

Word Mark: “EcoBottle” (claimed use since 2022).
Device Mark: Logo of “EcoBottle” (claimed use since 2021).

4. Regarding Generic Marks: This doctrine prevents a party from asserting that a mark is distinctive to secure registration, and later claiming it is generic to avoid infringement claims.

Illustration:

Company Y registers the mark “UltraMax” as a distinctive and coined mark. However, when sued for infringement by Company X, Company Y argues that “UltraMax” is a common, generic term with no exclusive rights. The doctrine bars Company Y from asserting these two contradictory positions — it cannot claim distinctiveness to obtain registration and later assert that the mark is generic.

Caselaw: In Mind Gym Ltd. v. Mindgym Kids Library Pvt. Ltd., the court held that once a defendant sought registration of a trademark based on its distinctiveness, they were estopped from later questioning the validity of that mark in an infringement case. The defendant had raised two contradictory pleas and could not take advantage of both.

5. Regarding Geographical Restrictions: The doctrine applies when a party agrees to geographical restrictions on the use of their trademark during registration but later tries to circumvent such restrictions.

Illustration:

Company B is granted registration for the mark “TeaEssence” with a restriction limiting its use to the state of Rajasthan. Later, Company B attempts to expand its use by applying for nationwide protection without the geographical restriction. The doctrine prevents Company B from violating the territorial limitation they accepted during the registration process.

6. Regarding Conditions Imposed: When a trademark is registered subject to specific conditions, the applicant is prohibited from disregarding or contradicting those conditions later on.

Illustration:

Company B applies for the trademark “BookWorld,” with the condition that it does not claim exclusive rights to the word “Book.” Later, Company B applies for the trademark “BookDepot,” which contradicts the condition imposed in the original registration. This scenario is a violation of the doctrine of approbate and reprobate.

Conclusion

The doctrine of approbate and reprobate serves to protect the integrity of trademark law and the judicial system by ensuring that parties act consistently and in good faith. It prevents the abuse of the legal process and reinforces the fairness of the legal system.

Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate

What is doctrine of approbate and reprobate?

Relevance of Approbate and Reprobate in Trademark Law

Conclusion

Share this article:

Search more articles:

You may also like