Recently, the Delhi High Court rejected a plea by Lotus Herbal, a company specializing in cosmetics and beauty products, seeking to prevent Deepika Padukone’s company from using the name ‘Lotus Splash’ for their facewash or face cleanser product [Lotus Herbal Private Limited v DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors].
On January25, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice C Hari Shankar, declined to issue an interim injunction in the trademark infringement case brought by Lotus Herbals against Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone’s wellness brand, 82E, and its product “Lotus Splash” gentle face cleanser. The ruling, pronounced on Thursday highlighted the distinct characteristics of the products in question, focusing on their differences in appearance, pricing, and branding.
Also read-Delhi High Court: ‘Being A Judicial Officer Should Not Result In Denial Of Justice’ (lawchakra.in)
Justice Shankar observed,
“A consumer who uses such products would be aware of the difference between ‘Lotus Splash’ and the plaintiff’s lotus family of products. It cannot be said, therefore, that the defendants are by using the goods name ‘Lotus Splash’ seeking to pass off its product as the product of the plaintiff.”
This statement underscores the court’s view that the informed consumer base would not confuse “Lotus Splash” with Lotus Herbals’ range.
Further elaborating on the distinctiveness of the “Lotus Splash” product, the court noted,
“In each of the packs of the defendants’ product, the mark ’82°E’ figures at the lower edge of the bottle. Though this may not be determinative of the controversy, if all the bottles are lined up next to each other, as they may well be, in a store which dispenses the said products, or in a beauty salon – the consumer would immediately note the common ’82°E’ brand name at the foot of the bottle and that in each case, the name on the face of the bottle describes the ingredients of the product.”
The court’s decision was also influenced by the application of Section 30(2)(a) of The Trade Marks Act. Justice Shankar stated,
“The use of ‘lotus’ is a key factor in rendering the entire mark ‘Lotus Splash’ indicative of the characteristics of the defendants’ face wash, containing, as its key ingredient, lotus flower extract. Moreover, as already observed earlier, the word ‘Splash’ is also indicative of the nature of the product, especially when used in conjunction with ‘Lotus’.”
Lotus Herbals had sought a permanent injunction to prevent Dpka Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited, which owns 82°E, from using the “Lotus” name in their product. However, the court, in its prima facie assessment, concluded that an average consumer, with imperfect recollection, would not likely associate “Lotus Splash” with Lotus Herbals. The court emphasized,
“Inasmuch as the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ is, therefore, indicative of the characteristics of the goods in respect of which it is used, the use of the mark cannot be regarded as infringing in nature. If there is no infringement, there can be no injunction.”
Representing Lotus Herbals was Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate, with a team of advocates, while Deepika Padukone’s company was represented by Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, and his legal team.
This ruling is a significant development in trademark law, particularly concerning the use of common words in brand names. It highlights the importance of considering the overall context and presentation of a product in determining trademark infringement.
