Patanjali v. Holy Cow Foundation: Delhi High Court on Prior Use and Consumer Confusion

Patanjali v. Holy Cow Foundation: Delhi High Court on Prior Use and Consumer Confusion. Trademark law plays a very important role in protecting the identity of a product in the market. It ensures that consumers are not confused about the source of goods and that businesses can protect the goodwill they have built over time. In India, trademark disputes are governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and courts often have to balance commercial interests with consumer protection.
One such important decision was delivered by the Delhi High Court on 9 January 2026, where the Court upheld the trademark registration of “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner”, a cow-urine-based cleaning product manufactured by Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas. The Court dismissed a petition filed by an NGO named Holy Cow Foundation, which sought cancellation of Patanjali’s trademark.
This judgment is significant because it explains how courts analyze similarity of trademarks, prior use, consumer confusion, and house marks. This article explains the case in simple English so that even a non-lawyer can understand the legal reasoning behind the judgment.
Background of the Dispute
The dispute arose between Holy Cow Foundation, a non-governmental organization working for the welfare of indigenous cows, and Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas, a trust associated with the Patanjali group founded by Baba Ramdev.
Holy Cow Foundation claimed that it had been manufacturing and selling a cow-urine-based floor cleaner under the name “Gaunyle” since the year 2013. According to the NGO, this product was prepared using traditional methods and promoted as an eco-friendly alternative to chemical floor cleaners.
Patanjali, on the other hand, was selling a similar product under the trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner”. The NGO alleged that the word “Gonyle” was deceptively similar to “Gaunyle”, both in sound and appearance, and that Patanjali had deliberately adopted this name to take advantage of the NGO’s goodwill.
Feeling aggrieved, Holy Cow Foundation approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of the trademark register, which means removal or cancellation of Patanjali’s registered trademark. 
Legal Provisions Involved
The case was decided under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the following provisions were especially important.
Section 57 – Rectification and Cancellation
Section 57 allows any aggrieved person to apply for cancellation or correction of a trademark that has been wrongly registered. The NGO relied on this section to argue that Patanjali’s trademark should never have been registered because it was confusingly similar to their mark.
Section 9(2)(a) – Absolute Grounds for Refusal
This section states that a trademark should not be registered if it is likely to deceive the public or cause confusion. Holy Cow Foundation argued that ordinary consumers would be misled into thinking that Patanjali’s product was connected with their NGO.
Section 11(1)(a) – Relative Grounds for Refusal
Under this provision, a trademark cannot be registered if it is similar to an earlier trademark and relates to similar goods, leading to consumer confusion. The NGO claimed that since it was a prior user of “Gaunyle,” Patanjali’s registration violated this section.
Arguments Presented by Holy Cow Foundation
Holy Cow Foundation argued that it was the prior user of the trademark. In trademark law, prior use is extremely important because Indian law follows the principle of “first use over first registration.”
The NGO claimed that:

It had been selling “Gaunyle” floor cleaner since 2013.

The pronunciation of “Gaunyle” and “Gonyle” is almost identical.

Both products are cow-urine-based floor cleaners, targeted at the same type of consumers.

Patanjali, being a large company, adopted the similar name in bad faith to dominate the market.

To support its claim, the NGO submitted invoices and documents showing alleged sales of “Gaunyle” products.

Arguments Presented by Patanjali
Patanjali strongly denied all allegations. It argued that:

It had been using the word “Gonyle” much earlier, since 2008.

The NGO’s documents were unreliable and inconsistent.

The trademark must be examined as a whole, not by isolating one word.

The presence of the word “Patanjali” in bold letters makes the product clearly distinguishable.

Patanjali also highlighted that it applied for trademark registration in August 2015, whereas Holy Cow Foundation applied later, in December 2015.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Examination of Prior Use and Evidence
The Delhi High Court carefully looked at Holy Cow Foundation’s claim that it had been using the trademark “Gaunyle” earlier. Under Indian trademark law, prior use is very important to decide ownership of a mark.
Holy Cow Foundation said that it had been using the mark since 2013 and submitted invoices and sales records as proof. However, when the Court examined these documents, it found many problems. The invoices were not continuous, the dates were irregular, and some invoices did not follow a proper sequence. Because of these issues, the Court doubted whether the documents were genuine and reliable.
The Court clearly stated that simply claiming earlier use is not enough. A party must show clear, consistent, and trustworthy proof of continuous commercial use of the trademark in the market.
Since Holy Cow Foundation could not provide reliable evidence, the Court held that it failed to prove prior use. As a result, it could not claim protection under Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.
Likelihood of Consumer Confusion
The Court then considered whether the two trademarks could confuse consumers. It applied the established rule that trademarks should be compared as a whole and not broken into parts.
The Court agreed that the words “Gaunyle” and “Gonyle” sound somewhat similar. However, it gave great importance to the strong and well-known brand name “Patanjali”, which was clearly displayed on the product.
The Court observed that Patanjali is a famous and widely recognised brand. An average consumer is more likely to associate the product with Patanjali rather than with a small NGO. 
Looking at the overall appearance, sound, meaning of the marks, and the type of customers, the Court concluded that there was no real chance of consumer confusion.
Final Judgment
After considering all facts and legal provisions, the Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by Holy Cow Foundation.
The Court ultimately held that the petition was devoid of merit for the following reasons:

Failure to prove prior use: The NGO could not establish prior use of the mark through credible and continuous commercial evidence, as required under Section 34 of the Trademarks Act.

Absence of likelihood of confusion: The Court found no real possibility of consumer confusion, particularly because the product was sold under the composite mark “Patanjali Gonyle,” with the well-known house mark clearly indicating its source.

No violation of statutory provisions: The trademark was held not to be in violation of Sections 9 or 11 of the Trademarks Act, as it was neither deceptive nor likely to mislead consumers.

Trademark upheld without costs: Consequently, the trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner” was upheld, and the Court did not impose costs on either party.

Conclusion
This judgment clearly shows that trademark law in India does not protect claims based on mere similarity of words or superficial resemblance. Courts focus on the overall impression of the mark, the quality and continuity of evidence showing actual use, and how an average consumer is likely to perceive the competing marks in the marketplace. The decision makes it clear that large or well-known brands are not presumed to be in the wrong, just as smaller organisations are not presumed to be in the right; the outcome of a trademark dispute ultimately depends on proof, statutory provisions, and settled legal principles.
The Delhi High Court’s ruling also reinforces the practical importance of maintaining proper commercial documentation, adopting trademarks in good faith, and understanding the strong role that house marks play in clearly indicating the source of goods and reducing the likelihood of confusion. For students, businesses, and legal professionals, the case serves as a valuable illustration of how trademark disputes are assessed in practice, combining statutory interpretation, judicial precedent, and real-world market considerations.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. What was the main issue before the Delhi High Court in this case?
Ans. The main issue was whether the registered trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner” should be cancelled on the ground that it was confusingly similar to the NGO’s alleged prior mark “Gaunyle” and whether the NGO could establish prior user rights.
Q2. Who filed the petition against Patanjali and why?
Ans. The petition was filed by Holy Cow Foundation, an NGO, claiming that it had been using the mark “Gaunyle” earlier and that Patanjali’s trademark was deceptively similar and likely to confuse consumers.
Q3. Which law governed the dispute?
Ans. The dispute was governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 57 (rectification), 9 (absolute grounds for refusal), 11 (relative grounds for refusal), and 34 (prior user rights).
Q4. What does Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act protect?
Ans. Section 34 protects the rights of a prior user of a trademark, even against a registered proprietor, provided that the prior use is clearly proven through continuous and genuine commercial evidence.
Q5. Why did the Court reject the NGO’s claim of prior use?
Ans. The Court rejected the claim because the NGO failed to provide reliable and continuous commercial evidence. The invoices submitted showed inconsistencies, irregular dates, and lack of continuity, which raised doubts about their authenticity.
Q6. Did the Court find the trademarks “Gaunyle” and “Gonyle” to be confusingly similar?
Ans. Although the Court acknowledged some phonetic similarity, it held that trademarks must be assessed as a whole. The prominent presence of the house mark “Patanjali” clearly distinguished the product and minimized any likelihood of confusion.
Q7. How did the Court assess consumer confusion in this case?
Ans. The Court applied the consumer-confusion test, considering the nature of goods, the class of buyers, and the overall impression of the marks. It concluded that an average consumer would associate the product with Patanjali and not with the NGO.
Q8. Why was the house mark “Patanjali” important to the Court’s decision?
Ans. The house mark “Patanjali” was crucial because it is well-known and widely trusted. Its presence clearly identified the source of the product and significantly reduced the possibility of deception or confusion.
Q9. Can religious or culturally derived words be registered as trademarks?
Ans. Yes. The Court held that words with religious or cultural origins are not automatically barred from trademark protection. What matters is whether the word is used distinctively in commerce and does not mislead consumers.
Q10. Did the Court find any violation of Sections 9 or 11 of the Trade Marks Act?
Ans. No. The Court held that the trademark did not violate Sections 9 or 11, as it was neither deceptive nor likely to cause confusion with an earlier mark.
Q11. What was the final outcome of the case?
Ans. The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition, upheld the trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner,” and did not impose costs on either party.
Q12. What is the key takeaway from this judgment?
Ans. The key takeaway is that Indian trademark law prioritizes proof of use, overall brand impression, and consumer perception over mere similarity of words. Trademark disputes are decided on evidence and legal principles, not on the size or status of the parties involved.

Trademark law plays a very important role in protecting the identity of a product in the market. It ensures that consumers are not confused about the source of goods and that businesses can protect the goodwill they have built over time. In India, trademark disputes are governed by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and courts often have to balance commercial interests with consumer protection.

One such important decision was delivered by the Delhi High Court on 9 January 2026, where the Court upheld the trademark registration of “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner”, a cow-urine-based cleaning product manufactured by Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas. The Court dismissed a petition filed by an NGO named Holy Cow Foundation, which sought cancellation of Patanjali’s trademark.

This judgment is significant because it explains how courts analyze similarity of trademarks, prior use, consumer confusion, and house marks. This article explains the case in simple English so that even a non-lawyer can understand the legal reasoning behind the judgment.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute arose between Holy Cow Foundation, a non-governmental organization working for the welfare of indigenous cows, and Patanjali Gramodyog Nyas, a trust associated with the Patanjali group founded by Baba Ramdev.

Holy Cow Foundation claimed that it had been manufacturing and selling a cow-urine-based floor cleaner under the name “Gaunyle” since the year 2013. According to the NGO, this product was prepared using traditional methods and promoted as an eco-friendly alternative to chemical floor cleaners.

Patanjali, on the other hand, was selling a similar product under the trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner”. The NGO alleged that the word “Gonyle” was deceptively similar to “Gaunyle”, both in sound and appearance, and that Patanjali had deliberately adopted this name to take advantage of the NGO’s goodwill.

Feeling aggrieved, Holy Cow Foundation approached the Delhi High Court seeking rectification of the trademark register, which means removal or cancellation of Patanjali’s registered trademark.

Legal Provisions Involved

The case was decided under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the following provisions were especially important.

Section 57 – Rectification and Cancellation

Section 57 allows any aggrieved person to apply for cancellation or correction of a trademark that has been wrongly registered. The NGO relied on this section to argue that Patanjali’s trademark should never have been registered because it was confusingly similar to their mark.

Section 9(2)(a) – Absolute Grounds for Refusal

This section states that a trademark should not be registered if it is likely to deceive the public or cause confusion. Holy Cow Foundation argued that ordinary consumers would be misled into thinking that Patanjali’s product was connected with their NGO.

Section 11(1)(a) – Relative Grounds for Refusal

Under this provision, a trademark cannot be registered if it is similar to an earlier trademark and relates to similar goods, leading to consumer confusion. The NGO claimed that since it was a prior user of “Gaunyle,” Patanjali’s registration violated this section.

Arguments Presented by Holy Cow Foundation

Holy Cow Foundation argued that it was the prior user of the trademark. In trademark law, prior use is extremely important because Indian law follows the principle of “first use over first registration.”

The NGO claimed that:

It had been selling “Gaunyle” floor cleaner since 2013.
The pronunciation of “Gaunyle” and “Gonyle” is almost identical.
Both products are cow-urine-based floor cleaners, targeted at the same type of consumers.
Patanjali, being a large company, adopted the similar name in bad faith to dominate the market.
To support its claim, the NGO submitted invoices and documents showing alleged sales of “Gaunyle” products.

Arguments Presented by Patanjali

Patanjali strongly denied all allegations. It argued that:

It had been using the word “Gonyle” much earlier, since 2008.
The NGO’s documents were unreliable and inconsistent.
The trademark must be examined as a whole, not by isolating one word.
The presence of the word “Patanjali” in bold letters makes the product clearly distinguishable.
Patanjali also highlighted that it applied for trademark registration in August 2015, whereas Holy Cow Foundation applied later, in December 2015.

Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

Examination of Prior Use and Evidence

The Delhi High Court carefully looked at Holy Cow Foundation’s claim that it had been using the trademark “Gaunyle” earlier. Under Indian trademark law, prior use is very important to decide ownership of a mark.

Holy Cow Foundation said that it had been using the mark since 2013 and submitted invoices and sales records as proof. However, when the Court examined these documents, it found many problems. The invoices were not continuous, the dates were irregular, and some invoices did not follow a proper sequence. Because of these issues, the Court doubted whether the documents were genuine and reliable.

The Court clearly stated that simply claiming earlier use is not enough. A party must show clear, consistent, and trustworthy proof of continuous commercial use of the trademark in the market.

Since Holy Cow Foundation could not provide reliable evidence, the Court held that it failed to prove prior use. As a result, it could not claim protection under Section 34 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

Likelihood of Consumer Confusion

The Court then considered whether the two trademarks could confuse consumers. It applied the established rule that trademarks should be compared as a whole and not broken into parts.

The Court agreed that the words “Gaunyle” and “Gonyle” sound somewhat similar. However, it gave great importance to the strong and well-known brand name “Patanjali”, which was clearly displayed on the product.

The Court observed that Patanjali is a famous and widely recognised brand. An average consumer is more likely to associate the product with Patanjali rather than with a small NGO.

Looking at the overall appearance, sound, meaning of the marks, and the type of customers, the Court concluded that there was no real chance of consumer confusion.

Final Judgment

After considering all facts and legal provisions, the Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition filed by Holy Cow Foundation.

The Court ultimately held that the petition was devoid of merit for the following reasons:

Failure to prove prior use: The NGO could not establish prior use of the mark through credible and continuous commercial evidence, as required under Section 34 of the Trademarks Act.
Absence of likelihood of confusion: The Court found no real possibility of consumer confusion, particularly because the product was sold under the composite mark “Patanjali Gonyle,” with the well-known house mark clearly indicating its source.
No violation of statutory provisions: The trademark was held not to be in violation of Sections 9 or 11 of the Trademarks Act, as it was neither deceptive nor likely to mislead consumers.
Trademark upheld without costs: Consequently, the trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner” was upheld, and the Court did not impose costs on either party.

Conclusion

This judgment clearly shows that trademark law in India does not protect claims based on mere similarity of words or superficial resemblance. Courts focus on the overall impression of the mark, the quality and continuity of evidence showing actual use, and how an average consumer is likely to perceive the competing marks in the marketplace. The decision makes it clear that large or well-known brands are not presumed to be in the wrong, just as smaller organisations are not presumed to be in the right; the outcome of a trademark dispute ultimately depends on proof, statutory provisions, and settled legal principles.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling also reinforces the practical importance of maintaining proper commercial documentation, adopting trademarks in good faith, and understanding the strong role that house marks play in clearly indicating the source of goods and reducing the likelihood of confusion. For students, businesses, and legal professionals, the case serves as a valuable illustration of how trademark disputes are assessed in practice, combining statutory interpretation, judicial precedent, and real-world market considerations.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. What was the main issue before the Delhi High Court in this case?

Ans. The main issue was whether the registered trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner” should be cancelled on the ground that it was confusingly similar to the NGO’s alleged prior mark “Gaunyle” and whether the NGO could establish prior user rights.

Q2. Who filed the petition against Patanjali and why?

Ans. The petition was filed by Holy Cow Foundation, an NGO, claiming that it had been using the mark “Gaunyle” earlier and that Patanjali’s trademark was deceptively similar and likely to confuse consumers.

Q3. Which law governed the dispute?

Ans. The dispute was governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, particularly Sections 57 (rectification), 9 (absolute grounds for refusal), 11 (relative grounds for refusal), and 34 (prior user rights).

Q4. What does Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act protect?

Ans. Section 34 protects the rights of a prior user of a trademark, even against a registered proprietor, provided that the prior use is clearly proven through continuous and genuine commercial evidence.

Q5. Why did the Court reject the NGO’s claim of prior use?

Ans. The Court rejected the claim because the NGO failed to provide reliable and continuous commercial evidence. The invoices submitted showed inconsistencies, irregular dates, and lack of continuity, which raised doubts about their authenticity.

Q6. Did the Court find the trademarks “Gaunyle” and “Gonyle” to be confusingly similar?

Ans. Although the Court acknowledged some phonetic similarity, it held that trademarks must be assessed as a whole. The prominent presence of the house mark “Patanjali” clearly distinguished the product and minimized any likelihood of confusion.

Q7. How did the Court assess consumer confusion in this case?

Ans. The Court applied the consumer-confusion test, considering the nature of goods, the class of buyers, and the overall impression of the marks. It concluded that an average consumer would associate the product with Patanjali and not with the NGO.

Q8. Why was the house mark “Patanjali” important to the Court’s decision?

Ans. The house mark “Patanjali” was crucial because it is well-known and widely trusted. Its presence clearly identified the source of the product and significantly reduced the possibility of deception or confusion.

Q9. Can religious or culturally derived words be registered as trademarks?

Ans. Yes. The Court held that words with religious or cultural origins are not automatically barred from trademark protection. What matters is whether the word is used distinctively in commerce and does not mislead consumers.

Q10. Did the Court find any violation of Sections 9 or 11 of the Trade Marks Act?

Ans. No. The Court held that the trademark did not violate Sections 9 or 11, as it was neither deceptive nor likely to cause confusion with an earlier mark.

Q11. What was the final outcome of the case?

Ans. The Delhi High Court dismissed the rectification petition, upheld the trademark “Patanjali Gonyle Floor Cleaner,” and did not impose costs on either party.

Q12. What is the key takeaway from this judgment?

Ans. The key takeaway is that Indian trademark law prioritizes proof of use, overall brand impression, and consumer perception over mere similarity of words. Trademark disputes are decided on evidence and legal principles, not on the size or status of the parties involved.