Case Title: Kryolan GmbH and Anr. v. M/s Krelon Cosmetics and Anr. Order Date: 01.09.2025 Case Number: CS(COMM) 920/2025 & I.A. 21373-21376/2025 Neutral Citation: Not specified Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi Name of Hon'ble Judge: Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Summary of the Case
Facts
Kryolan GmbH (Plaintiff No. 1, a German company) has used the trademark 'KRYOLAN' as its trade mark, trade name, house mark, and company name since 1945 worldwide, including India, for cosmetics like mascara, gel eyeliner, makeup sponges, lipsticks, and cream blushes. Its Indian wholly-owned subsidiary (Plaintiff No. 2, established 2002) continues this use. The mark is registered in India (No. 601757, Class 3, since 15.07.1993), with additional applications pending. Plaintiffs collaborate with dermatologists for skin-safe products, promote via makeup artists, own domain kryolan.com (since 08.04.1998) and other domains, and report high Indian sales (e.g., ₹66.71 crores in 2023-2024, with year-wise figures from 2011-2024 and ad expenses detailed). Products are sold through physical premises (photo from 1976 on record) and online/offline channels.
Defendants (M/s Krelon Cosmetics as No. 1 and Anr. as No. 2) use 'KRELON/KRELON COSMETICS' for identical cosmetics. Plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist notice on 20.12.2024 demanding stoppage of use or similar marks; defendants replied 06.01.2025 refusing compliance, claiming descriptive adoption. Defendants filed TM application No. 548169 (09.06.2022, Class 3, proposed use, pending under opposition by Plaintiff No. 1) and No. 6114674 (18.09.2023, Class 35, registered since unopposed, but rectification petition filed by Plaintiff No. 1 as unaware at advertisement time). Defendants claim use since 21.11.2022 and 10 years in beauty industry. On distributor site (Maniram Balwant Rai), searching defendants' products suggests plaintiffs', indicating confusion.
Dispute
The suit seeks permanent injunction against trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, unfair competition, damages, etc., under Trade Marks Act, 1999. Plaintiffs argue 'KRELON/KRELON COSMETICS' (impugned mark) is deceptively similar to 'KRYOLAN'—visually (similar structure), phonetically (sound alike), and conceptually (fanciful marks in identical cosmetics category, Class 3)—likely confusing average consumers into believing defendants' products are authorized/affiliated. Addition of 'COSMETICS' is descriptive and non-distinctive. Defendants' Class 35 registration irrelevant (services, not goods). Plaintiffs' mark is invented/fanciful house mark; defendants' descriptive claim fallacious. Bad faith presumed: Defendants aware of plaintiffs' prior use (sales ₹71.79 crores in 2022-23) yet adopted in 2022. Trade channels/consumers identical, risking misrepresentation. Defendants absent despite advance service.
Decision
The court disposed of interlocutory applications (I.As.) as follows:
- I.A. 21373/2025 (under Section 151 CPC): Granted exemption from filing translated copies of documents Nos. 11 and 18, subject to filing within four weeks.
- I.A. 21374/2025 (under Section 12A Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC): Exempted pre-institution mediation due to urgent interim relief needs, citing Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi (2024) 5 SCC 815.
- I.A. 21375/2025 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) CPC as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC): Allowed filing additional documents within 30 days strictly per Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018; directed placing global sales figures for cosmetics and catalogue of India-available products on record.
- I.A. 21376/2025 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC): Found prima facie case: Plaintiffs prior registered proprietors (No. 601757, Class 3); 'KRYOLAN' invented/fanciful with substantial goodwill/sales; 'KRELON' deceptively similar (visual/phonetic), not descriptive, in identical goods/channels, presuming bad faith awareness. Balance of convenience/irreparable injury favors plaintiffs; public interest in avoiding confusion. Ex parte ad-interim injunction granted until next hearing: Defendants, proprietors/partners/directors, and agents restrained from using 'KRELON/KRELON COSMETICS' or deceptively similar marks/names in Class 3 for cosmetics, infringing 'KRYOLAN'. Notice via all modes on process fee payment, returnable next date; reply within four weeks of notice; rejoinder four weeks thereafter. Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC compliance within one week.
For main suit (CS(COMM) 920/2025): Plaint registered as suit. Summons to defendants via all modes on process fee; affidavit of service within two weeks. Written statements due within 30 days of summons receipt, with affidavits of admission/denial of plaintiffs' documents (failure: not on record). Plaintiffs at liberty for replications within 30 days of written statements, with affidavits for defendants' documents (failure: not on record). Unjustified denials may attract costs. Inspection per Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. List before Joint Registrar (J) on 13.10.2025 for service/pleadings; court on 27.02.2026.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
