Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs Viraj Harjai & Anr

Case Background:

The matter was brought before the Delhi High Court, challenging the registration of the trademark ‘Purplle Tree’ by Viraj Harjai. Manash Lifestyle, having used the ‘Purplle’ mark since 2011, contended that the registration of ‘Purplle Tree’ was deceptive, amounted to trademark infringement, and was done with mala fide intent. The Respondent, Viraj Harjai, had registered ‘Purplle Tree’ under Classes 14 and 4 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. After hearing arguments, the Court ruled in favor of Manash Lifestyle, ordering the removal of ‘Purplle Tree’ from the Trade Marks Register, citing deceptive similarity and dishonest adoption.

Facts:

1. An online beauty and wellness company, PURPLLE, was incorporated in the year 2011. They offered several makeup, hair, bath, skincare, body, herbal, baby care, fragrance, beauty appliances, and luxury products through their website.
2. The Petitioner is the owner and proprietor of a number of trade marks under various classes, that were valid, existing, and in continuous use since the year 2011.
3. It is during a routine search of the Trade Marks Registry records, that the Petitioner came across a trade mark application for a strikingly similar mark, PURPLLE TREE/ with respect to essential oils filed by Respondent. The said application was objected by the Trade Marks Registry under Section 11 of the Act, citing marks of the Petitioner. Then, an extensive search in the Trade Marks Registry records was conducted by the Petitioner. During this search, the Petitioner came across the impugned registrations for the mark, i.e., PURPLLE TREE/ , on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. Accordingly, the Petitioner filed the present petitions under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 seeking rectification/removal of the impugned marks.

Issue:

Whether the Respondents’ use of the trademark ‘PURPLLE TREE’ infringed upon the Petitioner’s prior registered trademark ‘PURPLLE’ and if such use was likely to cause confusion among consumers, amounting to trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The Petitioner argued that it is a leading market player in India’s beauty and wellness industry, offering over 50,000 products from more than 1,000 brands to a customer base exceeding one million, primarily through its website https://www.purplle.com/, which sees seven million monthly active users.
• The trademark ‘PURPLLE’ was adopted in 2011, and the Petitioner owns multiple related trademarks that have been used continuously and in good faith. The brand enjoys significant recognition and common law rights, owing to nationwide promotions, substantial advertising, and widespread sales through its website, retail outlets, and third-party platforms.
• The domain names PURPLLE.COM and PURPLLE.IN have been validly registered since 2011 and 2012 respectively. With a strong presence on TV, print, and digital platforms—including celebrity endorsements and over one million Instagram followers—the mark ‘PURPLLE’ has achieved distinct consumer association.
• The Petitioner asserts that unauthorized use of the mark could result in infringement, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition. To protect its rights, the Petitioner has obtained multiple ex-parte and ad-interim injunctions—such as in Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. PURPLLE.LIVE & Ors. and Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.—as well as several successful oppositions before the Trade Marks Registry.
• The Petitioner alleges that Respondent No. 1 adopted the deceptively similar mark ‘PURPLLE TREE’, merely adding the word ‘TREE’ to the established ‘PURPLLE’ mark, likely to confuse or deceive consumers and create a false impression of affiliation.
• The Respondent’s applications, filed on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis with no evidence of actual use, are claimed to violate multiple provisions of the Trade Marks Act, including Sections 9, 11, 12, 18, and 32. Consequently, the Petitioner seeks rectification of the impugned marks from the Register of Trade Marks due to their deceptive similarity and absence of bona fide use.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Respondent, Viraj Harjai, argued that ‘Purplle Tree’ was registered under different classes and was not intended to infringe upon the Petitioner’s mark.
• The defense attempted to differentiate their mark by highlighting the added word ‘Tree’. They also suggested that their trademark application was filed in good faith and was not intended to cause confusion among consumers. However, they failed to provide substantial evidence of commercial use or brand recognition for ‘Purplle Tree’.

Court’s reasoning & Analysis:

The Court held that the Petitioner’s trademark ‘PURPLLE’, with its unique and arbitrary spelling, had acquired distinctiveness through long, continuous, and extensive use and promotion. It observed that Respondent No. 1 had dishonestly adopted the mark ‘PURPLLE TREE’, which entirely subsumed the Petitioner’s registered mark. The mere addition of the word ‘TREE’ and a pictorial element failed to distinguish the impugned mark, which remained phonetically, structurally, and visually similar to ‘PURPLLE’.

“Such use of a similar mark will invariably mislead and confuse consumers and members of trade into believing that the goods under the impugned mark are sourced from the Petitioner or are in some manner associated with the Petitioner.”

The Court found that such use was likely to cause confusion and deception among consumers and members of the trade, falsely suggesting an association with the Petitioner. It further held that Respondent No. 1 could not have been unaware of the Petitioner’s established goodwill and reputation, especially given the global accessibility of the internet and the Petitioner’s extensive promotional activities. The adoption of the impugned mark was deemed dishonest and mala fide. The fact that the marks were registered in a different class was considered immaterial. Accordingly, the Court directed the cancellation and removal of the ‘PURPLLE TREE’ mark from the Register of Trade Marks, holding it to be in violation of the Petitioner’s prior trademark rights and constituting trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Conclusion:

The Delhi High Court concluded that the Respondents’ mark ‘PURPLLE TREE’ was deceptively similar to the Petitioner’s ‘PURPLLE’ mark and was adopted with dishonest intent. The court ordered the removal of the ‘PURPLLE TREE’ trademark from the Register of Trade Marks, upholding the Petitioner’s rights and emphasizing the importance of protecting established trademarks from infringement and unfair competition.