Delhi High Court upholds Trademark of ‘Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner' made of cow urine
High Court held that no case for rectification of the Register under Section 57 read with Sections 9(2)(a) and 11(1)(a) of the Act was made out.
The Delhi High Court recently held that the Mark ‘PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER’ bearing Registration No. 3094452 in Class 05 shall continue to remain on the Register of Trade Marks.
A bench of Justice Tejas Karia held that the registration of the Impugned Mark was valid and subsisting, and there is no justification for cancelling / removing / rectifying the same from the Register.
A Rectification Petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) for cancellation / removal / rectification of the registered Trade Mark, ‘PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER’ was filed before the High Court by Holy Cow Foundation, a non-governmental organization which aims at the protection and promotion of the welfare of the indigenous cows in India
The NGO argued that it was the prior adopter and continuous user of the Mark since 2013, and that the Impugned Mark was applied for by the Respondents with mala fide intention to capitalize upon the tremendous reputation and goodwill accrued to the Petitioner’s Mark. It was submitted by the Petitioner that the Impugned Mark is visually, structurally and phonetically identical to the Petitioner’s Mark, both Marks covering identical goods, namely floor cleaners manufactured from cow urine, thereby causing confusion and deception amongst the consuming public.
Patanjali asserted superior rights as prior adopters and continuous users of the Impugned Mark since 2008, antecedent to the Petitioner’s user from 2013, and as registered proprietors across Classes 03, 05, 21 and 35. The prominent presence of the well-known House Mark ‘PATANJALI’ in the Impugned Mark was argued to constitute a decisive distinguishing feature precluding any likelihood of confusion.
"In the present case, while there may be some phonetic similarity between ‘GAUNYLE’ and ‘GONYLE’, this Court cannot overlook the critical distinguishing feature of the Impugned Mark, namely, the prominent presence of the well-known House Mark, ‘PATANJALI’. The Impugned Mark reads as ‘PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER’ and is a Device Mark, whereas the Petitioner’s Mark is the Word Mark, ‘GAUNYLE’. The Respondents’ well-known House Mark, ‘PATANJALI’ has been declared a well-known Mark and enjoys substantial goodwill and reputation in the market. The presence of this distinctive and well-known House Mark serves as a powerful differentiating factor that would immediately identify the goods as emanating from the Respondents. Consumers are likely to associate the goods primarily with ‘PATANJALI’ rather than focusing solely on the descriptive element ‘GONYLE’", the High Court noted.
High Court held that the Petitioner had failed to establish prior user of the Petitioner’s Mark vis-à-vis the Respondents. "The documentary evidence adduced by the Petitioner is tainted with inconsistencies that raise questions about its authenticity. In contrast, the Respondents have consistently claimed user since 2008, which predates the Petitioner’s claimed user from 2013. Furthermore, even if the Petitioner had established prior user, the Court would still need to be satisfied that the Impugned Mark is identical or deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Mark and that there exists a likelihood of confusion. As discussed above, the presence of the well-known House Mark, ‘PATANJALI’ in the Impugned Mark serves as a powerful distinguishing feature that negates any likelihood of confusion. The Petitioner has also sought to invoke Section 9(2)(a) of the Act, which provides that a trade mark shall not be registered if it is of such nature as to deceive the public or cause confusion. However, for the reasons discussed above, this Court finds that the Impugned Mark does not fall foul of this provision. The overall impression created by the Impugned Mark, viewed holistically with its well-known House Mark, ‘PATANJALI’ is sufficiently distinct from the Petitioner’s Mark," it added.
Noting that the Impugned Mark, when viewed holistically with the prominent ‘PATANJALI’ House Mark, was not identical or deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s Mark so as to cause confusion or deception amongst consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the high court held that no case for rectification of the Register under Section 57 read with Sections 9(2)(a) and 11(1)(a) of the Act was made out.