Facts: In this case, Pushpdeep Cotex Private Limited, the petitioner, filed a rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking cancellation of trade mark registration no. 5925080. This registration covered a label device granted to respondent Anoop Agarwal on May 6, 2023, in Class 26, which pertains to textile goods like saree falls.
The petitioner claimed it had been using the trademarks “Rani” and “Rachna” on saree falls and blouse textile pieces for many years, with the earliest trademark “Rani” registered since May 16, 2000. The petitioner presented evidence showing continuous and extensive use of these marks and their artistic labels since 2007. It also produced artistic receipts, newspaper advertising, and a caution notice issued in 2021 well before the respondent’s adoption of the impugned mark.
Procedural Detail: The respondent, Anoop Agarwal, countered the petition by stating that his label “Ragini Smile Polyester Saree Fall” was adopted in February 2022 for honest and bona fide reasons and that the trademark application was granted without any objection from the Trade Mark Registry. The respondent claimed that the mark “Ragini” was distinct from “Rani” and “Rachna,” both phonetically, visually, and conceptually, and that there was no risk of confusion to the public. Proceeding further, the High Court heard arguments from both sides, reviewed evidence placed by the petitioner, and considered the respondent’s defenses.
Dispute: The central dispute revolved around whether the impugned label registered by the respondent was deceptively or confusingly similar to the petitioner’s earlier registered marks and their associated artistic presentation. The matter called for a determination of prior and continuous use, the strength and originality of the petitioner’s artistic labels, and the risk of confusion among the consumers due to similarities in the marks and trade getup.
Reasoning: The High Court thoroughly examined the evidence and noted very strong visual and conceptual similarities between the petitioner’s and respondent’s labels. The petitioner’s label for “Rani” was artistically styled, and the same font, design, color scheme (yellow and red), tagline layout (“Smile Polyester Saree Fall” and “A Quality Product From The House Of …”), and imagery were all replicated in the respondent’s “Ragini” label. The only significant difference was the names “Rani” and “Ragini.” The Court found that even this difference lost importance because both were written in an identical style and lettering, leaving an overall impression of near identity between the labels.
The High Court relied on the benchmark judgment Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care P Ltd. [2003 SCC OnLine Del 1005], which observed that substantial imitation of color combination and get-up of a container can itself cause deception—even if the trade names differ. The test is the likelihood of confusion or deceptiveness in the minds of unwary customers.
The Court also emphasized that distinctive color combinations and artistic styles could serve as trade marks, protected not only against direct copying but also against substantial and conscious imitation. It found the petitioner had shown prior and wide use of its label since 2007, with the 2021 caution notice predating the respondent’s adoption in 2023.
Further, the Court applied the principle that rights of a prior user override registration by a subsequent user. Citing S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai [2016 2 SCC 683], the Court reiterated that rights of prior use always prevail over later registrants. This was further supported by reference to Neon Laboratories Ltd. v. Medical Technologies Ltd. [2016 2 SCC 672] and N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corp. [1996 5 SCC 714], noting that prior use involving generation of goodwill and reputation outscores statutory registration.
The respondent’s defense of honest adoption and absence of registry objection was not accepted because the similarities were overwhelming and the evidence for prior use by the petitioner was clear. The Court concluded that the respondent was a subsequent user and the adoption of the mark was both dishonest and in bad faith.
Decision: Accordingly, the High Court ordered cancellation of respondent’s trademark registration no. 5925080 under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to rectify and remove the impugned trademark from the Register within four weeks. The petition and related applications were disposed of, affirming the legal position that the rights of a prior user, backed by substantial evidence of continuous use, trump a later registration even if the registry was not objected to initially.
Case Title: Pushpdeep Cotex Private Limited Vs Anoop Agarwal & Another
Order Date: September 24, 2025
Case Number: C.O. COMM.IPD-TM 108/2025
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon’ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
