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.
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.
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.
The court found 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.
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
