Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Relief To 'Forest Essentials' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against 'Baby Forest'
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the interim injunction plea filed by skincare and cosmetics brand Forest Essentials seeking to restrain another brand from using the marks “Baby Forest” and “Baby Forest- Soham of Ayurveda” while selling baby care products. Justice Anish Dayal observed that the word 'Forest' in itself is generic and Forest Essentials cannot claim dominance over the...
The Delhi High Court has dismissed the interim injunction plea filed by skincare and cosmetics brand Forest Essentials seeking to restrain another brand from using the marks “Baby Forest” and “Baby Forest- Soham of Ayurveda” while selling baby care products.
Justice Anish Dayal observed that the word 'Forest' in itself is generic and Forest Essentials cannot claim dominance over the said part of their trademark, having not sought registration under Section 17 (2) of the Trademark Act.
“For plaintiff to claim monopoly over the mark 'FOREST', which is itself a commonly used word, therefore may not be tenable,” the court said.
However, the court said that the undertaking by the defendant company Baby Forest to not use the marks 'SAUNDARYA' and 'BABY ESSENTIALS, will continue to subsist.
The suit was filed by Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited, the company which owns Forest Essentials. It sought to restrain the defendants from using the marks- 'BABY FOREST', 'BABY FOREST–SOHAM OF AYURVEDA', 'BABY ESSENTIALS' and 'SAUNDARYA POTLI'.
The court rejected the interim injunction application and observed that the fact that Forest Essentials has sold products worth Rs. 15 crores as opposed to defendants' Rs. 2.26 crores did not give them a right to appropriate any mark related to the word 'FOREST', or to displace a registered mark 'BABY FOREST', without having a registration themselves in 'FOREST ESSENTIAL BABY' and 'FOREST ESSENTIALS-BABY ESSENTIALS'.
“A couple of social media references are not enough to show that there is 'widespread confusion' or likelihood thereof. There is no substantial evidence to show continued confusion amongst customers over a length of time,” the court said.
It added: “The new digital revolution in retail is obvious, and does not need to be articulated, since it envelops and involves most consumers, at least in the urban and semi-urban areas. With approximately 450 million smartphone users in India, the ability to access information is very high and prevalent, and while understanding the mindset of the consumer, this must be brought into the consideration.”
Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mr. Essenese Obhan, Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Ms. Ayesha Guhathakurta, Ms. Yogita Rathore and Ms. Anjuri Saxena, Advocates
Counsel for Defendants: Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Advocate alongwith Mr. Sudeep Chatterjee, Mr. Rohan Swarup, Ms. Tanya Arora, Mr. Jaydeep Roy and Mr. Udit Dedhiya, Advocates for D-1
Title: MOUNTAIN VALLEY SPRINGS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED v. BABY FOREST AYURVEDA PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S LANDSMILL HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED) & ORS.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 609