Delhi High Court Directs Removal Of 'Purplle Tree' From Trademark Register On Plea By E-Commerce Platform 'Purplle'

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited (petitioner), owner of the 'Purplle' trademark sells makeup, skincare, hair, baby care and beauty & wellness products.

It stated that one Viraj Harjai (respondent no. 1) filed a trademark application for the mark 'Purplle Tree' with respect to essential oils in class 3 category. It stated that the said application was objected to by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act in view of the registered marks of Manash Lifestyle.

Subsequently, upon inspection, it found that 'Purplle Tree' was registered in Classes 14 and 4, on a 'proposed to be used' basis. It thus filed the present petitions seeking rectification of the impugned marks.

Manash Lifestyle submitted that it adopted the Purplle mark in 2011 and has been using it continuously. It submitted that by virtue of prior adoption, continuous and uninterrupted usage, along with extensive promotion in respect of cosmetics and skin care products, Purplee mark has exclusively come to be associated with it.

It argued that respondent no. 1 has merely added the word 'Tree to its impugned marks and that it has no bona fide use of the impugned marks. It stated that usage of the impugned without its authorization would amount to infringement of its mark, passing off, dilution and unfair competition.

Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that 'Purplle' is an arbitrary formation of a mark and any adoption of the same would amount to a dishonest adoption.

Comparing the two marks, the Court said that the impugned mark is deceptively similar to that of the petitioner. It stated that the impugned mark would mislead and confuse consumers and members of trade into believing that the goods under the impugned mark are associated with the petitioner.

The Court further observed “The respondent no.1 has blatantly lifted the prior used and registered trademark 'PURPLLE' and added the word 'TREE', which is hardly a distinguishing factor, to arrive at the impugned mark. The existence of entirely, phonetically, structurally and confusingly similar marks on the Register of the Trade Marks, is likely to cause confusion, and deception amongst the trade members, and the general public. Thus, the impugned registration directly conflicts with the prior rights of the petitioner in the trademark 'PURPLLE' and amounts to trademark infringement, as well as unfair competition.”

It stated the adoption of the impugned mark was done with a malafide intention. It also noted that the impugned marks have been registered on a 'proposed to be used' basis and that there is no evidence to indicate any usage of the impugned marks.

The Court thus directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove 'Purplle Tree' mark from the registry.

Case title: Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs. Viraj Harjai & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 400