The Delhi High Court found that a single judge made an error in denying interim relief to Forest Essentials in their trademark case against Baby Forest. Justice Anish Dayal had previously rejected Forest Essentials’ application, ruling that the term “forest” is generic.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, provided a prima facie observation that a single-judge may have erred in refusing to grant interim relief to the Ayurvedic cosmetics, skincare and perfume company Forest Essentials in a trademark dispute against the Ayurvedic baby care products company Baby Forest.
The Division Bench has given a preliminary assessment that the single-judge’s interpretation of the ‘initial interest confusion’ doctrine potentially incorrect, leading to the denial of relief to Forest Essentials.
The Division Bench observed,
“Prima facie, we find merit in the appellant’s contention that the learned single-judge has erred in its interpretation of the doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’ to entail persistence of confusion till a stage that the transaction is consummated. The doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’ entails that there is confusion only at the initial stage and there is no confusion when the transaction for sale and purchase is completed. The customers are in no doubt of the product they are buying when the sale is completed. The confusion is only at the initial stage,”
Consequently, the Bench issued a notice to Baby Forest regarding Forest Essentials’ appeal against the single-judge order and scheduled the case for further hearing on September 9.
In an order passed on May 15, Justice Anish Dayal refused to grant interim relief to Forest Essentials.
The court observed that,
“The word ‘forest’ is generic and that Forest Essentials could not claim dominance over a part of its trademark without registering it separately.”
Additionally, on the aspect of alleged deceptive similarity between the two companies’ products, the single-judge stated that,
“The packaging and the logo of the products were very dissimilar.”
The court stated,
“A couple of social media references alone are insufficient to demonstrate ‘widespread confusion’ or a likelihood of it,”
The single-judge also ruled that a Google search suggestion does not sufficiently indicate confusion, as Google’s algorithms operate based on various factors.
Following this decision, Forest Essentials appealed to the Division Bench.
Advocates Swathi Sukumar, Essenese Obhan, Ayesha Guhathakurta, and Anjuri Saxena represented Forest Essentials
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, along with advocates Jayant K Mehta, Sandeep Chatterjee, Tanya Arora, and Jaydeep Roy, appeared for Baby Forest.
Read Also: Delhi HC acknowledges Haldiram as a Renowned Brand
Forest Essentials, established in 2000, is well-known for its high-quality skincare and wellness products based on traditional Ayurvedic principles. The company claims that Baby Forest, a newer entrant in the market, has been using a similar name and branding strategy, leading to confusion among consumers and diluting the distinctive identity that Forest Essentials has painstakingly built over the years.
In their plea, Forest Essentials argued that Baby Forest’s use of a closely resembling trademark not only likely to deceive customers but also constituted an attempt to ride on the coattails of Forest Essentials’ established reputation and goodwill. They sought an injunction to prevent Baby Forest from using any trademark or branding elements that could be mistaken for those of Forest Essentials.
The Delhi High Court, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, ruled in favour of Forest Essentials.