Delhi High Court Removes ‘ACTIVEPUSHPA’ From Register for Being Confusingly Similar to ‘HEMPUSHPA’

Delhi High Court Removes ‘ACTIVEPUSHPA’ From Register for Being Confusingly Similar to ‘HEMPUSHPA’

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “ACTIVEPUSHPA” from the Trade Marks Register. The Court held that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to “HEMPUSHPA”, a decades-old ayurvedic tonic for women’s health, and is likely to cause consumer confusion. The decision was delivered by Justice Tejas Karia in a rectification petition filed by a long-established ayurvedic manufacturer.

Factual Background

The petitioner, Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons, has been manufacturing and selling ayurvedic syrups and tonics for women’s health under the trademark “HEMPUSHPA” since 1933. The mark is registered in Class 05 for pharmaceutical preparations and has acquired substantial goodwill through continuous and extensive use for over nine decades.

The respondent, Karna Goomar, is also engaged in the business of ayurvedic medicines and obtained registration of the mark “ACTIVEPUSHPA” for identical medicinal products.

Procedural Background

Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons filed a rectification petition before the Delhi High Court seeking cancellation of the “ACTIVEPUSHPA” mark from the Trade Marks Register. The petition was heard by a single-judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, culminating in an order dated December 24, 2025.

Issues

1. Whether “ACTIVEPUSHPA” is deceptively similar to the earlier mark “HEMPUSHPA”.

2. Whether the shared element “PUSHPA” constituted a dominant feature of the competing marks.

3. Whether continued registration of “ACTIVEPUSHPA” was likely to cause confusion, particularly in relation to medicinal products.

4. Whether the impugned mark deserved removal to maintain the purity of the Trade Marks Register.

Contentions of the Parties

Petitioner: The petitioner contended that “HEMPUSHPA” is a well-established trademark with decades of goodwill and consumer recognition. It argued that adoption of “ACTIVEPUSHPA” for identical ayurvedic medicinal products was dishonest and calculated to trade upon the reputation of its long-standing mark, thereby misleading consumers.

Respondent: The respondent opposed the rectification plea, arguing that “PUSHPA” is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in women-centric products and cannot be monopolised. It was submitted that the prefix “ACTIVE” sufficiently distinguished the later mark and that, when viewed as a whole, the two marks were dissimilar.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Tejas Karia began by noting that there was no dispute regarding the prior adoption, registration, and long-standing use of “HEMPUSHPA” by the petitioner. The Court emphasised that in cases involving pharmaceutical and medicinal goods, the test of deceptive similarity must be applied with greater strictness, given the direct impact on consumer health.

The Court observed that while exclusivity over the word “PUSHPA” could not be claimed in isolation, its prominent and dominant use in both marks was significant, particularly since the products were identical and catered to the same class of consumers. The Court found that the manner in which “ACTIVEPUSHPA” was adopted and used subsequent to the petitioner’s long-established mark revealed a mala fide intention to create confusion and benefit from the petitioner’s goodwill.

Furthermore, rejecting the respondent’s argument of genericness, the Court held that the overall presentation of the impugned mark indicated an attempt to associate with the well-known “HEMPUSHPA” brand. It further noted that consumers of such ayurvedic medicinal products may not be highly educated or literate, and given the identical goods and shared trade channels, confusion was inevitable among consumers with imperfect recollection.

Decision

Holding that the continued registration of “ACTIVEPUSHPA” was unsustainable in law and contrary to the integrity of the Trade Marks Register, the Delhi High Court allowed the rectification petition. The Court directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel and remove the trademark “ACTIVEPUSHPA” from the Register of Trade Marks.

In this case the petitioner was represented by Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Deepak Srivastava, Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Ms. Shruti Manchanda and Ms. Deasha Mehta, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Rahul Vidhani and Ms. Purva Chugh, Advocates.