Trademark Protection In Ayurveda: Delhi High Court Clarifies Deceptive Similarity And Dominant Features

Indian courts treat trademark protection in the pharmaceutical and ayurvedic sectors with special care because it affects consumer health and safety. The Delhi High Court's decision in Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar & Anr. adds to this area of law by examining deceptive similarity in ayurvedic medicines and the legal rules for trademark rectification under the Trademarks Act, 1999.

The present dispute arose between Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons, a well-known manufacturer of ayurvedic medicines, and the respondent, who registered the mark "ACTIVEPUSHPA" in Class 05. The petitioner is the owner of the mark "HEMPUSHPA", which has been continuously used since 1933 for Ayurvedic syrups and tonics. For over 90 years, "HEMPUSHPA" has built substantial goodwill and a reputation, especially in women's health products. When the respondent registered "ACTIVEPUSHPA" for similar goods, the petitioner sought removal of the mark under Section 57 of the Act.

The main question before the Court was whether the respondent's mark "ACTIVEPUSHPA" was deceptively similar to the petitioner's earlier registered mark "HEMPUSHPA" under Sections 9 and 11 of the Trademarks Act. The Court also had to consider whether the shared element "PUSHPA", derived from the Sanskrit language and commonly associated with ayurvedic products, could be treated as generic or non-distinctive, or whether it would constitute a dominant and protectable feature in the facts of the case.

While considering deceptive similarity, the Court reaffirmed settled principles that trademarks must be compared as a whole and from the perspective of an average consumer who may not remember a product's details perfectly. The Court emphasised that this is especially important in the case of medicinal and pharmaceutical products, including ayurvedic medicines, where confusion or association between competing products can have serious consequences. Therefore, the focus was on the overall impression the marks make, not on minor differences created by the rival marks in the marketplace.

The Court noted that both "HEMPUSHPA" and "ACTIVEPUSHPA" are word marks registered in the same class, used for the same ayurvedic medicines, sold in the same locations, and targeted at the same consumers, making confusion very likely. Both the marks also share the same ending "PUSHPA", which consumers are likely to remember when choosing products.

The respondents argued that "PUSHPA" is a generic term often used in ayurvedic and women's products, and therefore, it cannot be owned by one company. The Court disagreed, stating that pointing to other "PUSHPA" marks was insufficient to prove that the term was public property. The respondent could not show sufficient third-party use to overcome the distinctiveness the petitioner's mark gained from long and exclusive use.

The Court further observed that, given the petitioner's uninterrupted use of "HEMPUSHPA" since 1933, the mark had acquired a strong association with the petitioner's goods. In this situation, "PUSHPA" became a key and memorable part of the mark, not just a simple or descriptive word. The Court also noted the respondent's use of the impugned mark on its labels with the word "PUSHPA" prominently displayed, reinforcing its significance in the overall commercial impression of the mark.

The Court found that the petitioner was both the first to use and register the mark. The respondent's claim of using the mark since 1992 lacked solid evidence, and no good reason was given for choosing a mark so similar to a well-known ayurvedic brand in the same market. The Court reiterated that dishonest adoption cannot be justified by later use, and that bad faith matters in determining deceptive similarity and registration rights.

The Court was concerned that the Trademarks Registry did not mention the petitioner's earlier mark when reviewing the respondent's application. The Court also said that retaining the impugned mark on the Register harms its integrity and justifies the exercise of rectification powers. If a mark is registered in violation of Section 11 and could confuse people with an earlier mark, it should be removed to protect consumers and the original owner's rights.

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court held that "ACTIVEPUSHPA" was deceptively similar to "HEMPUSHPA" and that the shared element "PUSHPA" constituted a dominant feature in the circumstances of the case. The adoption of the impugned mark by the respondent was found to be dishonest and likely to cause confusion and passing off in the marketplace. Accordingly, the Court ordered cancellation and removal of the respondent's impugned mark from the Register of Trademarks.

This judgment shows that, in the ayurvedic and pharmaceutical sectors, Indian courts focus on protecting consumers when deciding cases involving deceptive similarity. It also clarifies that traditional or Sanskrit-based terms are not always generic, and that long use and distinctiveness can offer strong protection, even for words that seem descriptive. The decision highlights that trademark strategy in healthcare should consider both the meaning of words and how consumers see and remember them.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.