Delhi High Court Backs Patanjali’s ‘Gonyle’ Trademark Against Rectification Plea

Delhi High Court Backs Patanjali’s ‘Gonyle’ Trademark Against Rectification Plea

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of Patanjali’s trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner”, rejecting a plea seeking its cancellation. The decision reiterates settled trademark principles that marks must be assessed holistically and that the presence of a prominent house mark can significantly reduce the likelihood of consumer confusion.

Factual Background

Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas manufactures and markets a range of ayurvedic and natural products, including a cow-urine-based floor cleaner sold under the mark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner.”

Holy Cow Foundation, a non-governmental organisation working for the welfare of indigenous cows, claimed that it was the prior adopter and user of the mark “Gaunyle” for similar cow-urine-based floor cleaning products since 2013. It alleged that Patanjali’s use of “Gonyle” was phonetically and visually similar and intended to ride on its goodwill.

Patanjali, on the other hand, asserted prior use of the mark since 2008 and relied heavily on the presence of its well-known house mark “PATANJALI” as a distinguishing feature.

Procedural Background

Holy Cow Foundation filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act,1999, seeking removal of Patanjali’s mark from the Trade Marks Register. The matter came up before a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court.

Issues

1. Whether “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner” was identical or deceptively similar to the petitioner’s mark “Gaunyle.”

2. Whether the petitioner had established prior use and goodwill sufficient to justify rectification under the Trade Marks Act.

3. Whether the impugned mark was liable to be removed under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioner argued that it had been using the mark “Gaunyle” since 2013 and that Patanjali’s “Gonyle” was deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion among consumers. It alleged mala fide adoption and sought rectification of the register.

Patanjali denied these allegations, asserting earlier use dating back to 2008. It contended that the mark must be viewed as a whole and that the dominant presence of the “PATANJALI” house mark clearly distinguished its product. Patanjali also challenged the authenticity of the petitioner’s documents, pointing out inconsistencies in invoices relied upon to prove prior use.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Tejas Karia examined the rival marks holistically rather than dissecting them in isolation. The Court observed that the impugned mark prominently displayed the house mark “PATANJALI,” which played a crucial role in distinguishing the product in the minds of consumers.

It was stated by the Court that, “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 Court further scrutinised the petitioner’s claim of prior use and found that the documentary evidence relied upon suffered from material inconsistencies, casting serious doubt on itsauthenticity. In contrast, Patanjali’s claim of earlier use remained unrebutted.

On this basis, the Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish either deceptive similarity or a likelihood of confusion, both of which are essential for rectification under Sections 9(2)(a),

11(1)(a), and 57 of the Trade Marks Act.

Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition and upheld the registration of “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner.” It held that no case for removal of the mark from the Trade Marks Register was made out in law.

In this case the petitioner was represented by Ms. Subhashree Sil, Mr. Kuber Mahajan & Mr. Abhay Aren, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Junaid Alam, Mr. Nishant Mahtta, Mr. S. Nitin & Mr. Nitish Singh, Advocates.