Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Viraj Harjai & Anr. - Respondents
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 212 of 2024, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 213 of 2024
Decided On : 10-03-2025
(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9(1)(a), 9(2)(a), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3)(a), 11(4), 11(10), 12, 18(1), 18(4), and 32 - Rectification of trademark registrations - Petitioner sought removal of respondent's trademarks for being confusingly similar to its established mark ‘PURPLLE’ - The respondent's marks were registered on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis, lacking bona fide usage. (Paras 2.1, 3.6, 15, 20, 23)
(B) Trademark Infringement - The court found that the respondent's adoption of the mark was dishonest and likely to cause confusion among consumers, violating the petitioner's prior rights. (Paras 14, 16)
(C) Prior User Rights - The petitioner has been the prior user of the mark ‘PURPLLE’ since 2011, while the respondent's marks were registered much later without actual use. (Paras 22, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner operates an online beauty store under the name ‘PURPLLE’ and holds multiple registrations for the mark. The respondent registered similar marks, leading to the petition for rectification.
Findings of Court:
The impugned marks are liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks due to confusion with the petitioner’s established mark.
Issues: Whether the respondent’s marks are confusingly similar to the petitioner’s mark and the implications of their registration on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the adoption of a mark by a subsequent user must be done in good faith and that mere registration does not confer rights without usage.
Result: The trademark registrations of the respondent are cancelled.
ORDER :
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
bearing registration nos. 6236154 and 6234522 (“impugned marks”) in Classes 14 and 4 respectively, registered in favour of respondent no. 1.2. Facts, as canvassed in the petitions, are as follows:
. The petitioner operates through its website https://www.purplle.com/, wherein, the petitioner offers makeup, skincare, hair, bath and body, herbal, baby care, beauty and wellness, fragrance, beauty appliances, and luxury products.
PURPLLE.COM
PURPLLE BEAUTY FM, under various Classes, that are valid, subsisting and in continous and extensive use since the year 2011. The earliest of petitioner’s registrations for its marks is vide application dated 19th December, 2014, under registration no. 2865837 dated 24th August, 2019 in Class 44, with a user detail since 14th December, 2011.
with respect to Essential Oils filed by respondent no. 1. The said application was objected by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Act, citing marks of the petitioner.
, bearing registrations nos. 6236154 and 6234522 in Classes 14 and 4 respectively, on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present petitions seeking rectification of the impugned marks.3. On behalf of the petitioner, the following submissions have been made:
3.1 The petitioner is recognized as a market leader in the country and is involved in facilitating access to wide range of global beauty and wellness products that has a selection of over 1000 brands, comprising of more than fifty thousand products, with a customer base that exceeds one million individuals, accessed through its website https://www.purplle.com/, that is used by seven million monthly active users.
3.2 The petitioner has conceived and adopted its trademark, ‘PURPLLE’ in the year 2011. Further, the petitioner is the owner of several trademarks which have been continuously, honestly and concurrently used by the petitioner, and on account of the substantial usage, extensive sales and advertising of the petitioner, the petitioner’s marks have acquired an unrestricted and substantial common law right in the same.
3.3 The petitioner has made great efforts in promotion of the products under the trademark, ‘PURPLLE’ throughout the country, and spent enormous amounts of money and effort in building the brand identity through various forms of media. Further, the petitioner sells its products through its own e-commerce platform, https://www.purplle.com/, retails stores and through e-commerce websites, and has domain name registrations, i.e., PURPLLE.COM and PURPLLE.IN, that contain the word ‘PURPLLE’, which are both valid and registered since 2011 and 2012, respectively.
3.4 The petitioner has undertaken several promotional activities that have been prominently featured in television commercials, newspapers, magazines, digital platforms, and other mediums. Further, the petitioner has collaborated with well-known film stars and celebrities to endorse their trademarks.
3.5 The petitioner has actively promoted its products under the trademark, ‘PURPLLE’ across various social media platforms such as, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube etc., wherein, the petitioner has more than one million followers on Instagram and hundreds of thousands
 |
Trademark registrations must be based on bona fide use; deceptive similarity can lead to cancellation of marks.
The court established that the respondent's trademark 'GREEN DIAMOND' was a dishonest adoption of the petitioner's trademark 'DIAMOND', leading to confusion and passing off, warranting cancellation o....
Well-known trademarks require a higher degree of protection against deceptively similar marks to prevent consumer confusion.
Deceptive similarity of trade marks can lead to cancellation of registrations under the Trade Marks Act, prioritizing the rights of prior users over subsequent registrations.
Prior use and distinctiveness of a trademark override subsequent registrations, establishing a likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark disputes.
A well-known trademark is entitled to protection against identical and similar marks, as well as dissimilar goods, especially when registration is obtained in bad faith.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application and interpretation of various provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 in determining the similarity of trademarks, dishonest adop....
The central legal point established is the cancellation of a trade mark registration based on deceptive similarity and the well-known trade mark status of the petitioner's mark.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
