Delhi High Court refuses to prohibit Deepika Padukone’s company from using ‘Lotus Splash’ mark – India TV
The Delhi High Court has dismissed an application filed against Bollywood actor Deepika Padukone‘s company from using the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ for a facewash/ face cleanser product. An interim injunction plea was moved by a company, Lotus Herbal Private Limited.
Also Read: ‘Chuna Laga Diya’: Netflix faces backlash after Ranbir Kapoor’s Animal arrives without Extended Cut
Earlier, Lotus Herbal sued the actress and her company DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures for using the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ for their cosmetic product.
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 also 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.
“In as much 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.
(With IANS inputs)
