Recently, beauty brand Lotus Herbals filed a case against Deepika Padukone’s skincare brand 82E. The brand objected to the use of the words “Lotus Splash” by 82E as one of their product’s names. Find out what the Delhi High Court had to say in the Lotus Herbals vs Lotus Splash feud.
Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd. recently filed a case against Deepika Padukone’s brand 82E. The brand claimed that Padukone’s face wash ‘Lotus Splash’ infringes its well-known lotus trademarks. The claim further stated that the use of the word Lotus by 82E is likely to confuse people and make them believe that there’s an association of the facewash with the brand Lotus Herbals.
Lotus Herbal vs Lotus Splash – The Issue
Lotus Herbal claimed that it sells all its products under the trademark ‘Lotus’. The brand claimed that it started using the mark in 1993. And, over the years the public has started associating Lotus formative marks with them alone and no one else.
In view of the aforementioned, the company sent a notice to 82E to cease the use of the name ‘Lotus Splash.’ After that, the company sued seeking a permanent injunction or a permanent stoppage against the use of the word lotus by 82E.
In the given case, Lotus Herbals Pvt Ltd had sued DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited. Padukone is the co-founder of this company and 82E also falls under it.
Delhi High Court Judgment
However, while passing the judgment in the Lotus Herbals vs Lotus Splash case, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Deepika Padukone and did not find much merit in the claim filed by Lotus Herbal.
The judgment passed by Justice C. Hari Shankar rejected the application. The Hon’ble court opined and asserted that “It is quite obvious that no case of passing off can prima facie lie in the present case, especially as the only common feature between the plaintiffs and defendants’ mark is the word ‘lotus’.”
The Hon’ble court said the use of the word ‘Lotus’ by 82E for its face wash ‘Lotus Splash’ is only for the purpose of indicating the “characteristic of the product”. This is so because the product contains lotus extract as a key ingredient. Thus, this use does not amount to infringement of the registered Lotus trademarks.
Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the products are “completely dissimilar in appearance with a wide difference in the prices”.
“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 ruled.
The court rejected the application for an injunction for now, asserting that there’s no prima facie case for grant of injunction.
