Holy Cow Foundation's Rectification Petition Dismissed; Court Affirms 'PATANJALI' as a Distinguishing Feature
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court dismissed a petition filed by the Holy Cow Foundation against Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust) seeking the rectification of the trademark 'PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER'. The court's decision affirmed the legitimacy of Patanjali's trademark and emphasized the distinguishing feature of the well-known house mark 'PATANJALI'.
The case revolved around the claim by Holy Cow Foundation, a non-governmental organization promoting the welfare of indigenous cows, that it had been using the trademark 'GAUNYLE' since 2013 for a floor cleaning product derived from cow urine. The petitioner argued that Patanjali's mark was phonetically and visually similar, causing confusion among consumers.
However, the court, presided by Justice Tejas Karia, found Patanjali's claim of prior use since 2008 to be credible and backed by evidence. The court noted significant inconsistencies in the evidence presented by Holy Cow Foundation, undermining its claim of prior use. The judgment highlighted that the presence of the well-known 'PATANJALI' in the impugned mark was a critical factor that negated any likelihood of confusion among consumers.
The ruling analyzed various aspects, including the phonetic, visual, and structural elements of both marks. It concluded that despite some phonetic similarities, the distinctive 'PATANJALI' mark served as a differentiating factor that consumers would recognize. The court also emphasized that trademark law protects consumers from confusion and aims to uphold the trust and goodwill established by consistent use.
The judgment reiterated the principle that priority in adoption confers superior rights, underscoring that a subsequent user cannot claim precedence over a prior user merely on registration strength. The court found that the goods covered by Patanjali's mark, primarily sanitary preparations, were distinct from those covered by Holy Cow Foundation's mark, further reducing the likelihood of confusion.
In dismissing the rectification petition, the court noted that the registration of the impugned mark was valid and should remain on the register. This decision is a significant affirmation of trademark rights and highlights the importance of consistent and prior usage in establishing trademark claims.
The judgment provides a clear precedent on the role of well-known marks in distinguishing products and safeguarding against consumer confusion. It reinforces the need for substantial and credible evidence when challenging established trademarks.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks - Rectification of Register - The presence of a well-known House Mark, 'PATANJALI', in the Impugned Mark serves as a distinguishing feature, negating any likelihood of confusion with the Petitioner's Mark, 'GAUNYLE'.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 57, 9(2)(a), 11(1)(a), 34
Holy Cow Foundation v. Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas (Trust), (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2835387
