Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘the Act’) seeking rectification/removal of the trademark, 
, registered in Respondent 1’s favour, Mini Pushkarna, J., stated that Respondent 1’s marks i.e. PURPLLE TREE/
were liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Accordingly, the Court directed cancellation of registration of 
, registered in favour of Respondent 1.
Background
The petitioner was a company was incorporated in the year 2011 and operated an online beauty and wellness under the e-commerce platform named, PURPLLE. The petitioner operated through its website wherein, they offered makeup, skincare, hair, bath and body, herbal, baby care, beauty and wellness, fragrance, beauty appliances, and luxury products.
The petitioner was the owner and proprietor of several trade marks, i.e. 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, PURPLLE.COM, 
, 
, 
, PURPLLE BEAUTY FM, under various classes, that were valid, subsisting and in continuous and extensive use since 2011.
During a routine search of the Trade Marks Registry records, the petitioner came across a trade mark application for the mark PURPLLE TREE/
with respect to essential oils filed by Respondent 1. The said application was objected by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Act, citing marks of the petitioner.
Upon discovery of the said application of Respondent 1, the petitioner conducted a detailed search in the trade marks registry records and came across the impugned registrations for the mark, i.e., PURPLLE TREE/
, on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present petitions seeking rectification of the impugned marks.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the depiction of the word, ‘PURPLLE’ with addition of two ‘L’s resulted into an arbitrary formation of a mark. Hence, any adoption of the same in a manner, as adopted by the petitioner, would amount to a dishonest adoption. The Court stated that the impugned marks had an undeniable resemblance to the prior registered trade mark ‘PURPLLE’ of the petitioner. Respondent 1 had adopted the mark of the petitioner in its entirety.
The Court stated that it was apparent from the examination of the marks that the petitioner’s mark was completely subsumed in the mark of Respondent 1. Respondent 1 had added the word, ‘TREE’ as a suffix to the mark, ‘PURPLLE’, and added a pictorial representation of a tree. However, despite the endeavour of Respondent 1 to create distinctions, it was crystal clear that the impugned marks of Respondent 1 were confusingly/deceptively similar to the earlier and registered trade mark of the petitioner. Such use of a similar mark would invariably mislead and confuse consumers and members of trade into believing that the goods under the impugned mark were sourced from the petitioner or were in some manner associated with the petitioner.
The Court stated that Respondent 1 blatantly lifted the prior used and registered trade mark ‘PURPLLE’ and added the word ‘TREE’, which was hardly a distinguishing factor. The existence of entirely, phonetically, structurally and confusingly similar marks on the Register of the Trade Marks, was likely to cause confusion, and deception amongst the trade members, and the public. Thus, the impugned registration directly conflicted with the prior rights of the petitioner and amounts to trade mark infringement, as well as unfair competition.
The Court stated that given the long, continuous and extensive use and promotional activities undertaken by the petitioner, it was incomprehensible that Respondent 1 was unaware of the prior use, registrations, goodwill and reputation of the trademark ‘PURPLLE’. Thus, considering the facts on record, the adoption of a similar mark by Respondent 1 could be bona fide or honest.
The Court stated that extensive promotion of its products by the petitioner established substantial knowledge of the petitioner’s marks amongst the consumers and traders. There was ample proof on record that highlighted the widespread recognition of the products of the petitioner under the mark ‘PURPLLE’. Given the global accessibility of the internet, it was evident that knowledge and awareness of the business of the petitioner under its trade mark, were widespread and indisputable. Hence, it was apparent that Respondent 1 had adopted the marks in question knowingly and with dishonest and mala fide intention. Therefore, the fact that Respondent 1’s marks were registered in a different class, would be immaterial.
Thus, the Court stated that Respondent 1’s marks i.e. PURPLLE TREE/
were liable to be removed from the Register of Trade Marks. Accordingly, the Court directed cancellation of registration of 
, registered in favour of Respondent 1.
[Manash Lifestyle (P) Ltd. v. Viraj Harjai, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM), 212 of 2024, decided on 10-3-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Nageshwar Kumar and Ayush Dey, Advocates.
For the Respondents: R. Venkat Prabhat, SPC with Kamna Behrani, Ansh Kalra, and Divyanshu Sinha, Advocates; Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Debasish Mishra and Arnav Mittal, Advocates; Vinay Yadav, SPC with Kamna Behrani, Ansh Kalra and Divyanshu Sinha, Advocates.
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
