Short Summary
The Delhi High Court allowed a petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd seeking rectification of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered in favor of Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd. The court held that the mark 'D-TAN' is descriptive and not registrable under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The registration of the mark 'D-TAN' was cancelled, and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to remove the registration from the Register of Trade Marks.
Detailed Summary
[Cites
21
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court
Honasa Consumer Ltd vs Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd & ... on 19 June, 2026
Author:
Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench:
Tushar Rao Gedela
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 19.05.2026
Judgment delivered on: 19.06.2026
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023 & I.A. 18072/2023
HONASA CONSUMER LTD .....Petitioner
versus
VISAGE BEAUTY AND HEALTH CARE PVT LTD & ANR.
.....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior Advocate
alongwith Ms. Kartika Sharma, Ms. Harsha
Sandhwani, Mr. Sahil Saraswat, Mr. Manav Mitra
and Ms. Shubhika Joshi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Ms. Aamna Hasan, Ms.
Anupriya Shyam, Mr. Aarya Deshmukh and Ms.
Vaibhavi SG, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, Mr. Mohit Goyal, Mr.
Yash Basoya, Mr. Inderpreet Singh and Mr. Kunal
Dixit, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under
Section 57
of the Trade Mark
Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking rectification of the
trademark 'D-TAN' bearing registration no.2065580 in Class-3 granted in
favour of respondent no.1.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:YASHRAJ
C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023 Page 1 of 38
Signing Date:19.06.2026
17:07:35
2. The facts, in brief, as stated by the petitioner are that the petitioner
company was incorporated in the year 2016. It is stated that the respondent
no.1 filed the Trade Mark Application bearing no.2065580 in Class-3 for the
mark 'D-TAN' on 09.12.2010 which was advertised in the Trade Marks
Journal bearing no.1814-0 on 11.09.2017. On 30.01.2018, the Trade Mark
Application of respondent no.1 proceeded for registration.
3. The petitioner claims to have launched its products under the trademark
'AQUALOGICA' in the year 2021. While the petitioner was manufacturing
and offering for sale its products under the mark 'AQUALOGICA', on
14.04.2023 the respondent no.1 is alleged to have issued a cease and desist
notice alleging infringement of its trademark 'D-TAN' by the petitioner's
product under the mark 'AQUALOGICA DETAN + DEWY SUNSCREEN'
on the ground that the mark used by the petitioner is deceptively similar to the
mark 'D-TAN'.
4. Vide the communication dated 05.05.2023 the petitioner claims to have
responded to the cease and desist notice of the respondent no.1 refuting the
claims and contentions contained in the cease and desist notice. The petitioner,
in its reply dated 05.05.2023, mentioned that the notice of infringement issued
by the respondent no.1 is misconceived and bereft of merit, inasmuch as the
mark 'D-TAN' is a descriptive term, comm
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Honasa Consumer Ltd vs Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Aktiebolaget Volvo Of SwedenvsVolvo Steels Ltd. Of Gujarat (India)
The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Aktiebolaget Volvo Of Sweden, granting an interim injunction against Volvo Steels Ltd. of Gujarat (India). The court found that the defendant was dishonestly adopting the globally recognized 'Volvo' brand name to trade on the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. Despite arguments regarding delay or product differences, the court prioritized protecting the dilution and debasement of the strong trademark, setting aside the lower court's dismissal order.
M/s.Carborundum Universal LimitedvsSelvam Hardwares
In a dispute over the use of the trademark 'SPEED,' M/s. Carborundum Universal Limited sought injunctions and damages against Selvam Hardwares for alleged infringement and passing off. While the parties reached an amicable settlement regarding the commercial aspects of the suit (injunctions, damages, accounts), the Madras High Court proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff's request for a declaration that 'SPEED' is a well-known trademark. The court granted this specific declaratory relief, recognizing the mark's status in relation to diamond cutting and polishing tools.
Interdigital Technology CorporationvsGuangdong Oppo Mobile
The plaintiffs claim infringement of five of their Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) by the defendants' mobile devices. They seek a permanent injunction against the manufacture and sale of these devices, along with damages.
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company (Sr 6/2020/PT/KOL)vsThe Controller General Of Patents Designs and Trademarks And Anr
R J Reynolds Tobacco Company challenged the refusal of its patent application for a tobacco flavorant method, which was rejected solely on the grounds that all forms of tobacco are injurious to human health (Section 3(b) of the Patents Act). The petitioner argued that the rejection lacked any scientific basis or reasoning, being based merely on a preconceived notion. The Calcutta High Court agreed, finding the Assistant Controller's order unsubstantiated and arbitrary. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd.vsLG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Quantum Hi-Tech Merchandising Pvt. Ltd., upholding the Commercial Court's decision to deny an interim injunction against LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case for infringement or passing off, particularly lacking evidence of market use and sufficient goodwill prior to the respondent's usage. Furthermore, the High Court noted the appellant's deliberate concealment of facts, leading it to decline interference in the appeal.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.