Rajvaidya Shital Prasad Vs Karna Goomar

Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons, engaged in manufacturing ayurvedic syrups and tonics, adopted the mark 'HEMPUSHPA' in 1933 with registration from 1983 claiming use since 1938, building significant goodwill as a well-known mark for women's tonic advertised by celebrities. Karna Goomar registered 'ACTIVEPUSHPA' in 2016 claiming use from 1992 for similar ayurvedic medicines, prompting the petitioner to file a rectification petition under Sections 9, 11, 12, 18, 34, 47, 57, and 125 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, alleging deceptive similarity, dishonest adoption, and registry error in not citing the prior mark. The court analyzed the marks holistically, finding 'PUSHPA' dominant in both despite anti-dissection rule under Sections 15 and 17, as respondent emphasized it in labels, indicating bad faith to exploit petitioner's reputation; goods identical, channels same, confusion likely, especially for pharmaceuticals; registry lapse justified rectification for purity. Petition allowed, mark cancelled.

• Suffix in word marks can be dominant and cause confusion if emphasized in use, overriding anti-dissection rule under Sections 15 and 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when marks share identity in goods and channels: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar and Anr., Para 37.
• Bad faith adoption emphasizing similarity to prior mark warrants rectification under Section 11, even if common element argued generic: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar and Anr., Para 40.
• Registry's failure to cite prior similar marks during examination justifies cancellation to maintain register purity under Section 57: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons vs Karna Goomar and Anr., Para 43.

Case Title: Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons Vs Karna Goomar :24.12.2025:C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 385/2021:2025:DHC:11881:Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]

[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi]