Introduction: The beauty and skincare market is crowded, and brand names often borrow from nature. When a new face cleanser named “Lotus Splash” entered the market, Lotus Herbals saw it as a direct threat to their long-established “Lotus” identity. The single judge allowed the use, calling it descriptive. On appeal, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court took a closer look and reversed that view. This ruling shows how courts protect famous marks even when rivals claim their name is just describing an ingredient.
Factual Background: Lotus Herbals has built a strong reputation over many years selling herbal skincare and beauty products under the “Lotus” name and its variations. The company holds several registrations for the word “Lotus” and logos in classes covering cosmetics. Their products are widely known, heavily advertised, and associated with natural ingredients.
DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures, linked to actress Deepika Padukone, launched a face cleanser under the main brand “82°E”. The product was prominently named “Lotus Splash” and highlighted lotus flower extracts as a key ingredient. Lotus Herbals objected, arguing that the name would confuse customers into thinking the product came from them or was connected to their range.
Procedural Background: Lotus Herbals filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent ban on the use of “Lotus Splash” or any similar name. They also asked for an immediate temporary order to stop sales while the case continued. The single judge heard both sides and refused the temporary order. He held that “Lotus Splash” was merely descriptive because the product actually contains lotus extract, so it fell under legal exceptions allowing honest descriptive use. Feeling this was wrong, Lotus Herbals appealed to the Division Bench. Senior lawyers argued at length on both sides. After detailed consideration, the Division Bench delivered its judgment on 16 February 2026.
Reasoning and Decision of Court: The Division Bench found the single judge’s approach mistaken on key points. They agreed there was clear similarity because “Lotus” is the striking and dominant part of both names. An ordinary shopper seeing “Lotus Splash” could easily link it to the well-known “Lotus” products, especially in the same category of face care items. Initial confusion was likely even if later differences became clear.
The court rejected the claim that “Lotus Splash” was purely descriptive. While lotus extract is an ingredient, the full name was used prominently on bottles, packaging, websites, and advertisements – exactly like a brand name. It was not hidden in small print as a mere description. The respondents were treating “Lotus Splash” as their product identifier, not just explaining contents. The presence of “82°E” at the bottom did not remove the risk of mix-up.
The judges stressed that descriptive use defences apply only when the words are used honestly to describe the product without trying to create a brand impression. Here, the overall commercial impression pointed to trademark use. The court also noted Lotus Herbals’ long prior use and strong reputation, making passing off likely as well.
The Division Bench set aside the single judge’s order. It granted the temporary injunction, stopping the respondents from making, selling, or promoting any product under “Lotus Splash” or any deceptively similar name until the main suit is finally decided. The appeal succeeded in favour of Lotus Herbals.
Point of Law Settled in the Case: This judgment clarifies that Prominent display turns a potentially descriptive phrase into infringing trademark use. Courts will examine the full commercial impression created by how the name is actually used on packaging, marketing, and sales – not just the dictionary meaning. Descriptive defences protect genuine explanations of contents but do not allow a rival to build a brand around a word that belongs to someone else. Established brands with proven goodwill receive strong interim protection to prevent customer confusion and dilution of their reputation.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles for this Article:
- Delhi High Court Stops Deepika Padukone’s Brand from Using ‘Lotus Splash’ – Victory for Lotus Herbals
- ‘Lotus’ Name Protected: Division Bench Overturns Single Judge in Major Cosmetics Trademark Battle
- Why Ingredient Names Cannot Become Rival Brands – Lessons from Lotus Herbals Ruling
- Delhi High Court Draws Line on Descriptive Use Defence in Beauty Industry Trademark Dispute
Suitable Tags: #TrademarkInfringement #DelhiHighCourt #LotusHerbals #DeepikaPadukone #BrandProtection #CosmeticsLaw #DescriptiveMarks #IndianIPLaw #CelebrityBrands #IPUpdate
Lotus Herbals, a long-established company known for herbal skincare and beauty products under the mark “Lotus”, sued DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures (linked to Deepika Padukone) for launching a face cleanser prominently named “Lotus Splash” under its main brand “82°E”. Lotus Herbals claimed the name would confuse customers and infringe its registered trademarks. The single judge refused interim injunction, holding that “Lotus Splash” was merely descriptive because the product contains lotus extract. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order. It found “Lotus” the dominant and memorable part of both names, creating clear likelihood of confusion. The respondents were using the name as a brand identifier on packaging, website and advertisements, not merely describing contents. The descriptive defence did not apply when the term functions as a trademark. The appeal was allowed and interim injunction granted restraining the respondents from using “Lotus Splash” or any deceptively similar name till final decision of the suit.
Law settled in the case
- When a common word forming the dominant part of a registered trademark is used prominently as a product name, it constitutes trademark use and can cause deceptive similarity even if an ingredient is present. (Paras 34-35)
- The descriptive use defence under Section 30(2)(a) is available only for honest description and does not protect use of the term as a source identifier or brand name. (Para 13 & 33)
Case Title: Lotus Herbals Pvt.Ltd. Vs DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Pvt.Ltd.: 16.02.2026:FAO(OS) (COMM) 45/2024:2026 DHC 1300 DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
