The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea seeking cancellation of Patanjali’s “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner” trademark. Justice Tejas Karia held that Holy Cow Foundation failed to prove prior use or establish any likelihood of consumer confusion under the Trade Marks Act.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition that sought to cancel the trademark for Patanjali’s “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner,” which is based on cow urine.
Justice Tejas Karia rejected the rectification petition brought under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Holy Cow Foundation (the petitioner), stating that it failed to demonstrate prior use or any likelihood of consumer confusion.
Also Read: Dabur vs Patanjali: Case In High Court Against Patanjali Over Misleading Chyawanprash Ad
Factual Backgrounds
The petitioner collaborates with gaushalas and gausadans to promote long-term sustainability through responsible animal welfare and enhanced management practices. To support this mission, the petitioner launched a floor-cleaning product made from cow urine under the brand name “GAUNYLE” in 2013, positioning it as an eco-friendly alternative to phenyl.
Subsequently, the petitioner applied for and received registration for this trademark under Application No. 3133397 in Class 05, which covers the relevant goods. Later, the petitioner learned, through market sources, that Respondents were manufacturing and selling cow-urine-based floor cleaners using the contested mark.
In response, the petitioner issued a legal notice to cease and desist from using the impugned mark or making any representations thereunder on January 14, 2017. The petitioner asserted that the respondents’ use of the mark was identical to its registered trademark and was executed with the intent to exploit the petitioner’s established goodwill.
In their response, the respondents claimed to have used the impugned mark since 2011, arguing that it is both phonetically and visually distinct from the petitioner’s mark. They also revealed that they had filed Trademark Application Nos. 3094452 and 3037168 for registration of the impugned mark in Classes 05 and 03, respectively. Additionally, the petitioner discovered that the impugned mark was registered on December 29, 2016.
Also Read: Kerala Court Issues Arrest Warrant Against Baba Ramdev For Misleading Patanjali Ads
Analysis of the Court:
The Court held that despite a degree of phonetic resemblance between “GAUNYLE” and “GONYLE,” the likelihood of confusion is substantially reduced due to the dominant presence of the well known house mark “PATANJALI.”
The impugned mark appears as “PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER” in a device form, whereas the petitioner’s mark “GAUNYLE” is a standalone word mark. “PATANJALI,” having been officially recognised as a well known trademark, carries significant goodwill and market recognition. This prominence operates as a decisive distinguishing feature, leading consumers to identify the product as originating from Patanjali rather than focusing solely on the descriptive element “GONYLE.”
The respondents successfully argued that the strength and reputation of their house mark outweigh any phonetic similarity, a principle supported by settled trademark law that acknowledges the differentiating impact of a well known house mark in appropriate cases.
Also Read: Patanjali Row | SC Orders Removal of Patanjali Ads, Suspends Sales of Restricted Products
The court relied on the principles laid down in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73, in which the Supreme Court clarified that trademark comparison must be undertaken by examining the mark in its entirety and assessing the overall impression it conveys to the consumer. The Court further noted that where a product prominently displays the manufacturer’s or house name, the likelihood of consumer confusion is significantly diminished.
Applying this settled legal position to the present dispute, the Court observed that the impugned mark, viewed as a whole, creates a distinct commercial impression due to the conspicuous presence of the well known house mark “PATANJALI.”
This dominant element clearly differentiates the respondents’ product from the petitioner’s mark. When assessed from the perspective of an average purchaser possessing ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection, the marks are unlikely to be mistaken for one another. The overall visual and conceptual identity of the impugned mark sufficiently distinguishes it from the petitioner’s mark, thereby negating any realistic possibility of confusion or deception in the marketplace.
Also Read: Supreme Court Favors Patanjali in Customs Duty Dispute After 23-Year Legal Battle
Final Decision of the Court:
After reviewing the evidence, the Court determined that the documentation submitted by the petitioner was unreliable and contained significant inconsistencies that raised serious questions about its authenticity.
The Court stated,
“The Impugned Mark, when viewed holistically with the prominent ‘PATANJALI’ House Mark, is 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 Petitioner has not made out a case for rectification of the Register under Section 57 read with Sections 9(2)(a) and 11(1)(a) of the Act. In light of the aforesaid findings, the present Rectification Petition is devoid of merit,”
Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.
Advocates Subhashree Sil, Kuber Mahajan, and Abhay Aren represented the plaintiff, while Advocates Junaid Alam, Nishant Mahtta, S Nitin, and Nitish Singh appeared for Patanjali Gramodyog Niyas.
Case Title: Holy cow Foundation v Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas trust
Read Attachment: