The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, the owner of the online beauty and wellness brand 'Purplle', directing the removal of the 'Purplle Tree' trademark from the Register of Trade Marks. The order came in response to a rectification petition filed by Manash Lifestyle, alleging infringement of its well-established brand identity.
Background of the Case
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, a company engaged in selling makeup, skincare, haircare, baby care, and wellness products under the brand 'Purplle', discovered that a trademark application had been filed by Viraj Harjai for the mark 'Purplle Tree' under Class 3 for essential oils.
Read also: Delhi HC Permanently Stops Rogue Website from Using L'Oreal's Trademark, Orders ₹ 1 Lakh Cost
Upon further investigation, it was found that 'Purplle Tree' was already registered under Classes 14 and 4 on a 'proposed to be used' basis. Subsequently, Manash Lifestyle filed petitions seeking rectification of these registrations, arguing that they conflicted with its prior rights.
Manash Lifestyle contended that:
- The 'Purplle' mark was adopted in 2011 and has been continuously used since then.
- Due to extensive promotion and usage, 'Purplle' had become exclusively associated with its brand.
- The respondent had merely added the word 'Tree' to 'Purplle', creating a deceptively similar mark.
- The use of 'Purplle Tree' without authorization amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition.
Read also: Delhi HC Permanently Stops Rogue Website from Using L'Oreal's Trademark, Orders ₹ 1 Lakh Cost
Justice Mini Pushkarna, while examining the case, noted that 'Purplle' is an arbitrary and unique formation, and any unauthorized adoption of the same would be considered dishonest. The Court found that:
- The impugned mark 'Purplle Tree' was deceptively similar to the petitioner's mark.
- The similarity in marks could mislead and confuse consumers, making them believe that 'Purplle Tree' was linked to 'Purplle'.
- The respondent had directly copied the existing trademark and merely added the word 'Tree', which was insufficient to distinguish it.
- The registration of such a mark was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers and trade members.
Read also: Delhi HC Permanently Stops Rogue Website from Using L'Oreal's Trademark, Orders ₹ 1 Lakh Cost
"The respondent no.1 has blatantly lifted the prior used and registered trademark 'PURPLLE' and added the word 'TREE', which is hardly a distinguishing factor, to arrive at the impugned mark. The existence of entirely, phonetically, structurally, and confusingly similar marks on the Register of Trade Marks is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst trade members and the general public."
The Court further ruled that:
- The respondent's adoption of the mark was done with malafide intent.
- There was no evidence indicating actual use of the 'Purplle Tree' mark.
- The impugned mark was registered solely on a 'proposed to be used' basis.
In light of the findings, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove 'Purplle Tree' from the register. The decision reinforces the significance of brand protection and emphasizes the legal consequences of dishonest trademark adoption.
This judgment sets a precedent for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks from deceptive and misleading registrations, ensuring that businesses retain their unique brand identity in the marketplace.
Case title: Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs. Viraj Harjai & Anr. (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 212/2024)
