The Delhi High Court ordered the trademark "Purplle Tree" to be taken off the official list of registered trademarks, providing relief to the e-commerce platform "Purplle."
Facts of the case
1.The petitions have been filed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, for the removal of the trademark registered under class 14 and 4.
2.The petitioner company was founded in 2011. The petitioner runs an online beauty and wellness store known as "Purplle." Through its website, www.purplle.com, the petitioner sells makeup, skincare, hair care, beauty appliances, fragrances, and other beauty and wellness products.
3.The petitioner is the owner and proprietor of several trademarks, i.e.
under different classes that are valid, subsisting and in continuous and extensive use since the year 2011.
4.While checking the Trade Marks Registry, the petitioner found an application for the trademark "PURPLLE TREE" in Class 3 for essential oils, filed by the respondent.
5.The Trade Marks Registry raised an objection to this application under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act due to the petitioner's existing marks.
6.After finding the "PURPLLE TREE" application, the petitioner searched the Trademark Registry and found two registered marks, by the name PURPLLE TREE in classes 14 and 4. The petitioner then filed petitions to have these marks removed.
Submissions by Petitioner
1.The petitioner is a recognised market leader in India who offers a wide range of global beauty and wellness products from over 1,000 brands, with more than 50,000 products.
2.Their website, www.purplle.com, has over one million customers and seven million active users every month.
3.The petitioner created and started using the trademark "PURPLLE" in 2011. The petitioner owns several trademarks that have been used continuously which lead to strong brand recognition and common law rights due to excessive use, sales, and advertising.
4.The petitioner has invested heavily in promoting the "PURPLLE" brand across India, using various media channels. They sell products through their e-commerce site, www.purplle.com, retail stores, and other online platforms. The petitioner also owns the domain names PURPLLE.COM and PURPLLE.IN, which have been registered since 2011 and 2012.
5.The petitioner has collaborated with famous film stars and celebrities to promote their trademarks.
Submissions by Defendant
< The defendant was absent, and despite service of summons, the respondent did not submit any reply. Therefore, the court decided to proceed with the case.
Decision
1.The petitioner holds several trademark registrations for the word "PURPLLE" in different classes. The unique spelling of "PURPLLE" with two 'L's makes it an original mark. Therefore, using it in a similar way would be considered dishonest.
2.The petitioner also owns domain name registrations in its favour which contain the word ‘PURPLLE’
3.The disputed mark of the respondent ‘PURPLLE TREE’ closely resembles the petitioner's registered trademark "PURPLLE." The respondent has adopted the petitioner's mark in full.
4.On the examination of the mark of the respondent, it can be observed that the petitioner’s mark is fully included in the respondent’s mark, with "TREE" added as a suffix and a tree image included. Despite the respondent's attempt to make it different, the two marks are still very similar and can confuse consumers into thinking the products are from or associated with the petitioner.
5.The existence of similar marks on the trademark register can cause confusion and deception among the public and businesses. The respondent's mark conflicts with the petitioner's rights to "PURPLLE," leading to trademark infringement and unfair competition.
6.Given the petitioner’s long use and promotion of the "PURPLLE" trademark, it is unlikely that the respondent was unaware of its prior use, registration, and reputation. Therefore, the respondent’s adoption of a similar mark cannot be considered genuine or honest.
7.The petitioner’s extensive promotion has made its marks well-known among consumers and traders.
Based on the arguments and discussion, the respondent's "PURPLLE TREE" marks should be removed from the Trademark Register.
