Cosmetics — India Trademark Cases
12 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 12 total
Guangzhou Hodm Professionals Cosmetics Co Ltd v.Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr.
The Delhi High Court issued directions in the trademark dispute concerning an allegedly forged assignment deed. Given that Respondent No. 2 filed an assignment deed which is being challenged, the court mandated that Respondent No. 1 (the Registrar) must file a detailed response within four weeks. Furthermore, the Registrar must specify the safeguards taken by the Trade Marks Registry when processing such assignments, highlighting concerns over potential fraud.
Goodai Global Inc v.Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Goodai Global Inc against Shahnawaz Siddiqu & Anr., directing the removal of an identical device mark registration (No. 5635163) in Class 3. The court found that the respondent obtained the mark dishonestly and in bad faith, attempting to trade upon the petitioner's established goodwill associated with its 'Beauty of Joseon' brand. Given the clear intent to appropriate the petitioner's reputation, the registration was deemed liable for cancellation under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act.
L'Oreal S.A. v.Tarun Sankhla trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS
L'Oreal S.A. filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against Tarun Sankhla (trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS) for infringing its trademarks, passing off, and diluting its brand reputation in the cosmetics market. The court found that the defendant was using deceptively similar marks and tradenames, leading to the decreeing of the plaintiff's suit.
M/s. L'Oreal S.A. v.M/s. J.R. Cosmetic Shop
The plaintiff, L'Oreal S.A., filed a suit alleging that the defendant, J.R. Cosmetic Shop, was manufacturing and selling goods using trademarks deceptively similar to its well-known brands like L'OREAL and MAYBELLINE in Hyderabad. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd & Anr. v.M/S L'Oreal India Private Limited & Anr.
The Delhi High Court allowed an appeal filed by M/S Pornsricharoenpun Co Ltd, setting aside a trial court order that had restrained them from using the phrase 'HAIR SPA'. The court ruled that since 'HAIR SPA' is a generic and descriptive term commonly used in the cosmetics industry to denote hair treatment, its use by the appellants under their registered trademark 'BERINA' did not constitute trademark infringement. This decision emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between proprietary marks and common trade language.
L'OREAL v.Haridas Pa
The plaintiff, L'Oreal, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants for infringing its trademarks ('L'OREAL', 'L'OREAL PROFESSIONNEL', 'L'OREAL PARIS') and passing off. The court found that the defendants were using deceptively similar marks (LOERA, LORA) in relation to beauty care products and services, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
M/s.Aravind Laboratories v.Modicare
The plaintiff, M/s.Aravind Laboratories, filed applications seeking an interim injunction against Modicare for infringement and passing off related to their cosmetics trade marks, specifically 'EYETEX DAZLLER'. The defendant argued that 'Daily Dazzler' was a bona fide descriptive mark under Section 35 of the Act. The court ultimately upheld the defense, finding no infringement or passing off.
M/S Gufic Ltd. & Another v.Clinique Laboratories, Llc & Anr
The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal challenging a restraining order against M/S Gufic Ltd. regarding its use of the mark 'SKINCLINIQ'. The appellate court overturned the lower court's finding of prima facie infringement, holding that there was no overall visual or phonetic similarity between 'CLINIQUE' and 'SKINCLINIQ'. Furthermore, the vast price differential between the products was cited as a factor preventing consumer confusion. Consequently, the injunction granted by the single judge was vacated.
Jolen Inc. v.Doctor & Company
The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Jolen Inc., finding that Doctor & Company was guilty of passing off by adopting the identical trademark 'JOLEN' and slavishly copying the distinctive carton and container design. The court emphasized that trade mark rights can be established through prior use, reputation, and goodwill, even without formal registration in India. Consequently, the defendant was granted an injunction to prevent further deceptive practices.
Aravind Laboratories v.Arihant Cosmetics
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Aravind Laboratories, holding that Arihant Cosmetics was guilty of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that Arihant's use of the deceptively similar mark 'EYE-TOP,' coupled with an identical get-up, color scheme, and packaging design for their kajal product, constituted a clear violation of Aravind's established goodwill associated with its registered trademark 'EYETEX.' Consequently, the court made the interim injunction absolute, preventing Arihant from continuing to market the infringing goods.
M.A. Rahim v.M/S Arvind Laboratories
M.A. Rahim (plaintiff-respondent) claimed that M/S Arvind Laboratories (defendant-appellant) infringed their registered trade mark 'Eyetex' by using the similar mark 'Eyeris' for cosmetic preparations. The court examined the phonetic, visual, and structural similarity between the two marks.
Aravind Laboratories v.V.A. Samy Chemical Works
The Madras High Court ruled in favor of Aravind Laboratories, finding that V.A. Samy Chemical Works infringed upon its registered trade mark 'Eyetex' and committed passing off by using the deceptively similar mark 'Rani Eyevix'. Despite minor changes in packaging, the court held that the similarity created consumer confusion. The defendant was permanently enjoined from using the infringing mark and ordered to surrender all related materials.
Facing a trademark dispute?
Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.