City
Epaper

Delhi HC refuses interim injunction to 'Lotus' in trademark infringement case against Deepika Padukone's brand

By IANS | Updated: January 27, 2024 16:20 IST

New Delhi, Jan 27 The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunction in favour of 'Lotus ...

Open in App

New Delhi, Jan 27 The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim injunction in favour of 'Lotus Herbals' in its trademark infringement case against Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone's self-care brand, '82°E', specifically relating to the product 'Lotus Splash' gentle face cleanser.

Justice C. Hari Shankar stated that the products exhibited significant dissimilarities in appearance, with substantial price variations, and found no grounds for a passing-off case.

The court said the only common element between the two brands was the word "lotus".

The court said the consumer would be aware of the difference between 'Lotus Splash' and the plaintiff's Lotus family of products.

"It cannot be said that the defendants are seeking to pass off their product as the plaintiff's product," it said.

The court noted that 'Lotus Splash' was indicative of the characteristics of the goods and, therefore, the use of the mark was not considered infringing.

Moreover, it noted the presence of the '82°E' brand name on the lower edge of the defendants' product bottles, which would be evident to consumers in a retail setting.

Lotus Herbals had sought a permanent injunction against Dpka Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited, the owner of 82°E, to prevent the use of 'Lotus' as part of the mark for their product.

Dismissing Lotus Herbals' application for an interim injunction, the court explained that at a prima facie stage, a consumer would not likely associate the 'Lotus Herbals' product with 'Lotus Splash', given the predominant use of 'Lotus' in both names.

"Inasmuch as the mark 'Lotus Splash' is indicative of the characteristics of the goods, the use of the mark cannot be regarded as infringing in nature. If there is no infringement, there can be no injunction," concluded the court.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor

Open in App

Related Stories

BusinessIndo German Carbons Limited Strengthens Brand Protection Measures Following Repeated Trademark Infringement

BusinessIndian Stock Market Recovers After US Ambassador’s Trade Deal Remarks; Sensex Up 1,000 Points, Nifty Reclaims 25,800

InternationalSouth Korea: Police, military launch joint probe into North Korea's claim of drone incursion

InternationalTiming of German Chancellor Merz's India visit particularly significant: Foreign Secy Vikram Misri

BusinessIndia to be invited to join US-led Pax Silica tech initiative: Ambassador Sergio Gor

National Realted Stories

NationalSC issues notice on PIL to implement creamy layer in SC/ST reservations

NationalBihar BJP raises concern over attacks on Hindus in Bangladesh

NationalDelivery rider assaulted, forced to squat as punishment inside Zepto store in Delhi

NationalKerala's 'model' healthcare under strain as medical teachers step up protest

NationalImposter arrested for trying to interfere in ED case against Nowhera Shaik