'ACTIVEPUSHPA' Found Deceptively Similar to 'HEMPUSHPA'; Court Upholds Purity of Trade Mark Register
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has ordered the cancellation of the trademark 'ACTIVEPUSHPA', citing its deceptive similarity to the pre-existing 'HEMPUSHPA' trademark owned by Rajvaidya Shital Prasad And Sons. The decision, delivered by Justice Tejas Karia, emphasizes the importance of maintaining the purity of the trade mark register and preventing consumer confusion.
The court heard arguments from both parties, with the petitioner, Rajvaidya Shital Prasad And Sons, claiming that the 'ACTIVEPUSHPA' mark used by Karna Goomar and another respondent was likely to cause confusion due to its similarity to their well-established 'HEMPUSHPA' mark. The petitioner highlighted their extensive use and reputation built over 90 years, asserting that the impugned mark was adopted with dishonest intentions.
Justice Karia noted that the word 'PUSHPA' was a dominant feature in both trademarks, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The judgment reiterated that trademarks serve as source identifiers, allowing proprietors to build trust and goodwill, which must be protected from deceptive similarities.
Respondent No. 1, Karna Goomar, argued that the 'ACTIVEPUSHPA' mark was distinct, being a coined word from two different languages, and that the word 'PUSHPA' was generic in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry. However, the court found that the respondent's use of 'PUSHPA' in a prominent manner contradicted their claims of dissimilarity.
The court further emphasized that the anti-dissection rule, which requires marks to be compared as wholes, did not apply in this case due to the dominant use of 'PUSHPA'. Given the phonetic and visual similarities, and the identical nature of goods involved, the court found the impugned mark liable to cause confusion and deception.
The ruling directs the Trade Mark Registry to rectify the register by removing the 'ACTIVEPUSHPA' trademark, reinforcing the legal framework aimed at preventing the registration of deceptively similar trademarks. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to safeguarding the integrity of trademarks and protecting consumer interests.
Bottom Line:
Rectification of Trademark - When a trademark is deceptively similar to a prior registered trademark, it is liable to be rectified and cancelled from the Register of Trade Marks to maintain purity of the register and prevent confusion or deception in the minds of consumers.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 9, 11, 12, 18, 34, 47, 57, 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
Rajvaidya Shital Prasad And Sons v. Karna Goomar, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2828438
