Delhi High Court Cancels “ACTIVEPUSHPA” Trademark For Similarity With Ayurvedic Brand “HEMPUSHPA”

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “ACTIVEPUSHPA” from the Trade Marks Register, holding that the mark is deceptively similar to “HEMPUSHPA,” a decades-old ayurvedic tonic for women's health, and is likely to confuse consumers.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in an order dated December 24, 2025, allowed a rectification plea filed by Rajvaidya Shital Prasad and Sons, a Delhi-based manufacturer and marketer of ayurvedic medicines.The court directed cancellation of the “ACTIVEPUSHPA” mark registered in the name of Karna Goomar, who is also engaged in the business of ayurvedic medicines.

Finding that the dominant features of both marks were similar, the court observed:

“The test of deceptive similarity depends on consideration of visual and phonetic similarity of the marks, nature of the goods and class of consumers, especially in the field of pharmaceutical and medicinal goods as the same may directly impact the health of the consumer.”

Rajvaidya and Sons told the Court that it has been manufacturing and selling ayurvedic syrups and tonics for women's health under the trademark “HEMPUSHPA” since 1933. It pointed out that the mark is registered in Class 05 for pharmaceutical preparations and has acquired substantial goodwill through continuous and extensive use for more than nine decades.

The company argued that the adoption of “ACTIVEPUSHPA” for identical ayurvedic medicinal products was dishonest and calculated to trade upon the reputation of its long-established mark.

Opposing the plea, Karna Goomar contended that “PUSHPA” is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in women-related products and cannot be monopolized by any single trader. It was argued that the addition of the word “ACTIVE” was sufficient to distinguish the later mark from “HEMPUSHPA” and that the two marks, when seen as a whole, were different.

After examining the record, the Court found no dispute over the prior adoption, registration, or long-standing use of “HEMPUSHPA” by Rajvaidya and Sons. It held that the shared use of the word “PUSHPA” formed a dominant feature of both marks, particularly in the way the marks were presented on the products.

The court observed, “Although the Petitioner cannot claim exclusivity on monopoly over the word 'PUSHPA', which is a common word being used by many others to identify the products relating to women, the manner in which the Impugned Mark is adopted and used for the identical goods for the same Class-05 subsequent to the adoption and use of the Petitioner's Mark clearly shows mala fide intention to cause confusion and gain benefit out of the same.”

Rejecting the argument that “PUSHPA” was generic in the facts of the case, the Court noted that its prominent depiction in “ACTIVEPUSHPA” indicated an attempt to create an association with the earlier and well-established brand.

It added, “The consumers of the Petitioner's goods as well as the Impugned goods belong to the same class and may not be highly educated or literate. Given that the goods are identical and share the same trade channels, there is no doubt that the similarity between the marks will result in confusion and deception in the minds of the public having imperfect recollection.”

Emphasizing the need to maintain the purity of the Trade Marks Register, the court held that the continued registration of “ACTIVEPUSHPA” was unsustainable in law.

It accordingly directed the Trade Marks Registry to cancel and remove the trademark from the Register of Trade Marks.