The Delhi High Court Division Bench, in a landmark interim relief decision dated **February 16, 2026**, reversed the Single Judge's order dismissing Lotus Herbals Private Limited's application for temporary injunction in its trademark infringement and passing off suit against DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited (associated with actor Deepika Padukone's self-care brand 82°E) and others. The appeal arose from the Single Judge's January 25, 2024 order refusing to restrain the respondents from using the mark "LOTUS SPLASH" for a face cleanser/facewash product, holding no prima facie infringement or passing off. Lotus Herbals, a well-established player in herbal cosmetics and personal care with the word/device mark "LOTUS" registered since 1996 across classes 3 and 5 (with over 55 registrations, massive turnover exceeding Rs. 695 crores in 2022-23, substantial advertising spends, and widespread reputation including IPL sponsorships), contended that "LOTUS SPLASH" was deceptively similar to its "LOTUS" family of marks, likely to cause confusion and dilute its goodwill, especially for identical goods like face cleansers. The respondents defended the use as descriptive (indicating lotus extract in the formulation), non-trademark use under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and argued no likelihood of confusion given distinct packaging and branding.
The procedural history began with Lotus Herbals filing suit CS (COMM) 454/2023 seeking permanent injunction, damages, etc., accompanied by I.A. 12308/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC for interim restraint. The learned Single Judge dismissed the IA, prompting the intra-court appeal FAO(OS)(COMM) 45/2024 under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act. The Division Bench heard arguments extensively, condoned delays in filings, deleted one party by consent, and reserved judgment on December 18, 2025, delivering it on February 16, 2026.
In its detailed reasoning, the Bench (Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar) disagreed with the Single Judge's view that "Lotus Splash" was merely descriptive or that no confusion arose. It held prima facie that "LOTUS" formed the dominant, essential feature of the impugned mark, as the word "Splash" was subsidiary and did not detract from the overall impression; the entire "LOTUS" mark appeared prominently in "LOTUS SPLASH", creating initial interest confusion per Cadila Healthcare principles, especially in pharmaceuticals/cosmetics where consumer attention is low. The Court rejected the descriptive defence under Section 30(2)(a), noting that the product description ("conditioning cleanser with lotus and bioflavonoids") rendered "Lotus Splash" redundant as a descriptor, and respondents' keyword purchases for "Lotus Face Wash" online, failure to register "Lotus Splash" despite registering other marks, and prominent sub-brand usage indicated mala fide intent to ride on Lotus Herbals' long-standing goodwill. Applying the dominant feature test from Hem Corporation v. ITC Ltd., the Bench found deceptive similarity under Section 29, likelihood of association, and passing off, with balance of convenience and irreparable injury tilting in favour of the prior registered proprietor. It granted the injunction as prayed, restraining use of "LOTUS SPLASH" or any "LOTUS" derivative/identical/deceptively similar marks (with or without prefix/suffix) for cosmetics, beauty, and hygiene products till suit disposal.
This judgment settles key principles in trademark law for composite marks containing common/descriptive elements. It reaffirms that when a registered mark like "LOTUS" (a well-known/family mark in the field) constitutes the essential feature of an impugned mark, the addition of non-distinctive words does not avoid infringement if overall impression causes confusion or deception, particularly for identical goods. It clarifies that bona fide descriptive use under Section 30(2)(a) requires the term to be necessary for indicating character/quality, not redundant or used as a brand identifier; mala fide elements like keyword bidding and selective non-registration strengthen infringement claims. It underscores protection against initial interest confusion in low-attention categories like personal care, and prioritizes prior registered user's rights in interim relief where goodwill is established through decades of use, high sales, and promotion.
**Case Details**
**Title**: Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors.
**Date of Order**: February 16, 2026
**Case Number**: FAO(OS)(COMM) 45/2024 (with connected CM Appls.)
**Neutral Citation**: 2026 DHC 1300 (as per available references)
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Hon'ble Judges**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao & 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
**Suggested Titles for the Article**
1. Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against Deepika Padukone's 82°E Brand in 'Lotus Splash' Trademark Dispute: Reverses Single Judge Order
2. Lotus Herbals Triumphs in Appeal: Division Bench Restrains 'Lotus Splash' Use by DPKA/82°E Citing Deceptive Similarity and Mala Fide Intent
3. Trademark Infringement in Cosmetics: Delhi HC Protects 'LOTUS' Mark Against Derivative 'LOTUS SPLASH' in Face Cleanser Case
4. From Descriptive Defence to Injunction: Key Takeaways from Lotus Herbals v. DPKA Universal on Dominant Feature and Initial Interest Confusion
**Suggested Tags**
Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Interim Injunction, Lotus Herbals, Lotus Splash, Deepika Padukone 82°E, Delhi High Court, Deceptive Similarity, Dominant Feature Test, Section 29 Trade Marks Act, Section 30(2)(a) Defence, Initial Interest Confusion, Well-Known Mark Protection, Cosmetics Trademark Dispute, IP Appeal, FAO(OS)(COMM)
**Headnote**
Delhi High Court Division Bench reverses Single Judge's refusal of interim injunction, grants restraint against use of "LOTUS SPLASH" or any "LOTUS" derivative marks by respondents (DPKA Universal/82°E) for face cleanser pending suit, holding prima facie deceptive similarity, dominant "LOTUS" element, likelihood of confusion/passing off, rejection of descriptive use defence due to mala fide branding/keyword use, and balance favouring prior registrant Lotus Herbals' established goodwill.
=====
In **Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited & Ors.**, the appellant, a leading herbal cosmetics brand with the registered "LOTUS" family of marks since 1996 (over 55 registrations in classes 3 and 5, massive turnover exceeding Rs. 695 crores in 2022-23, substantial advertising spends, and established goodwill including IPL sponsorships), filed suit CS (COMM) 454/2023 for infringement and passing off against the respondents' use of "LOTUS SPLASH" for a face cleanser under the 82°E brand (associated with actor Deepika Padukone). The Single Judge dismissed the interim injunction application I.A. 12308/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC vide order dated January 25, 2024, holding no prima facie case due to descriptive nature of "Splash" and lack of confusion. Aggrieved, Lotus Herbals preferred intra-court appeal FAO(OS)(COMM) 45/2024, which the Division Bench heard, reserved judgment on December 18, 2025, and delivered on February 16, 2026.
The Division Bench set aside the impugned order and granted interim injunction restraining the respondents from using "LOTUS SPLASH" or any identical/deceptively similar "LOTUS" derivative marks (with or without prefix/suffix) for cosmetics, beauty, and hygiene products pending suit disposal. It held prima facie deceptive similarity, with "LOTUS" as the dominant and essential feature of the impugned mark; "Splash" being subsidiary and non-distinctive, creating initial interest confusion especially in low-attention personal care products. The Court rejected the bona fide descriptive use defence under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, observing that "Lotus Splash" was redundant as a descriptor given the product's explicit "conditioning cleanser with lotus and bioflavonoids" claim, respondents' keyword bidding on "Lotus Face Wash" online, selective non-registration of "Lotus Splash" despite registering other marks, and prominent branding use indicated mala fide intent to ride on Lotus Herbals' goodwill. Applying the dominant feature test, likelihood of association under Section 29, and passing off elements, the Bench found balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the prior registered proprietor.
- In composite marks, where a registered mark (e.g., "LOTUS") constitutes the dominant/essential feature, addition of non-distinctive/subsidiary words (e.g., "Splash") does not avoid deceptive similarity or infringement if overall impression is likely to cause confusion, association, or initial interest confusion, particularly for identical goods in low-attention categories like cosmetics (paras relevant to dominant feature analysis and Cadila principles).
- Bona fide descriptive use defence under Section 30(2)(a) Trade Marks Act, 1999 requires the term to be necessary/bona fide to indicate character/quality of goods; it fails where the expression is redundant, used as a brand identifier, or accompanied by mala fide conduct such as keyword advertising on plaintiff's mark, selective non-registration, or intent to freeride on established goodwill (paras addressing Section 30(2)(a) and mala fide findings).
- Prior registered proprietor with long use, high sales, advertising, and reputation is entitled to interim restraint against derivative marks causing passing off/infringement where prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury are established (paras on interim relief criteria and goodwill protection).
**Case Title**: Lotus Herbals Pvt.Ltd. Vs DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Pvt.Ltd.
**Order Date**: February 16, 2026
**Case Number**: FAO(OS)(COMM) 45/2024 (with connected CM Applications)
**Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:1300-DB (indicative based on judgment upload reference)
**Name of Court**: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
**Name of Judges**: Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Kameswar Rao & 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
=====
