Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction To 'Lotus' In Trademark Infringement Suit Against Deepika Padukone's Self Care Brand's 'Lotus Splash'

The Delhi High Court has refused to pass an interim injunction order in favour of “Lotus Herbals” in its trademark infringement suit against Bollywood actress Deepika Padukone's self-care brand 82E's “Lotus Splash” gentle face cleanser.

Justice C Hari Shankar observed that the products are completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices and no case of passing off was made as the only common feature between the two marks is the word “lotus”.

“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,” the court said.

It added that the mark “Lotus Splash” is indicative of the characteristics of the goods in respect of which it is used and thus, use of the mark cannot be regarded as infringing in nature.

“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 observed.

Lotus in its suit sought a decree of permanent injunction to restrain Dpka Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited, which owns 82°E, from using “Lotus” as part of the mark under which they sell their product.

Dismissing Lotus' application seeking interim injunction, the court said that at a prima facie stage, a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who has first seen “Lotus Herbal” product and, later, comes across the' “Lotus Splash” face wash, would not be inclined to believe an association between the two products, especially as, in both names, “Lotus” forms the predominant part.

“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,” the court said.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Bansal, Ms. Asavari Jain, Mr. Mohan Vidhani, Mr. O.P, Bansal, Mr. D.K. Gupta, Ms. Bahuli, Mr. Rahul Vidhani, Mr. Prakhar Singh, Ms. Elisha Sinha and Ms. Mikshita Gautam, Advs

Counsel for Defendants: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr. Sujoy Mukherji, Ms. Sampurnaa Sanyal, Ms. Tarini Kulkarni, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Mr. Shreedhar Kale, Ms. Udita Patro and Ms. Nimrat Singh, Advs; Mr. Azeem Khan, Ms. Arundhati Dhar, Ms. Shreya Puri and Ms. Deepa Rathi, Advs

Title: LOTUS HERBALS PRIVATE LIMITED v. DPKA UNIVERSAL CONSUMER VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 104

Click Here To Read Order