The Delhi High Court had dismissed a Rectification Petition filed by the Holy Cow Foundation, as the Petitioner failed to establish prior adoption and user of the mark “GAUNYLE”. The Court further held that the impugned mark is not identical and is sufficient to differentiate by consumers of average intelligence.
The dispute arose from the petitioner’s claim that it had developed and marketed a cow-urine-based floor cleaner under the mark “GAUNYLE” since 2013, and that the respondents’ adoption of “PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER” in 2015 was phonetically, visually and structurally identical, amounting to dishonest adoption and passing off. The petitioner sought rectification under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, invoking Sections 9(2)(a) and 11(1)(a), and relied on the doctrine of prior user under Section 34 of the Act.
While adjudicating the matter, Justice Tejas Karia noted that the burden of proving prior user lies squarely upon the petitioner. The Court observed that the invoices submitted by the petitioner suffer from material inconsistencies and cast serious doubts on their authenticity.
On the issue of similarity of the marks, the Court acknowledged some phonetic resemblance between “GAUNYLE” and “GONYLE”, but held that trademarks must be assessed as a whole. The Court emphasised that the impugned mark prominently features the well-known house mark “PATANJALI”, which enjoys substantial goodwill and reputation.
The Court also noted that the petitioner had failed to oppose the respondent’s trade mark application at the appropriate stage and could not seek rectification belatedly after the mark had been registered and extensively used. Finding no merit in the allegations of mala fide adoption or deceptive similarity, the Court held that the statutory grounds for rectification were not made out.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the validity of the registration of “PATANJALI GONYLE FLOOR CLEANER” under Registration No. 3094452 in Class 05 and dismissed the rectification petition, with no order as to costs.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner – Advocates Subhashree Sil, Kuber Mahajan, and Abhay Aren.
For the Respondents – Advocates Junaid Alam, Nishant Mahtta, S. Nitin, and Nitish Singh.
