Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of Case
This case deals with a company protecting its brand names and product descriptions in the beauty industry. The plaintiff, a skincare product maker, sued the defendant for copying its trademarks and the exact wording of ingredients and usage steps on three facial kits. The court looked at whether this copying broke trademark and copyright laws. Since the defendant stopped participating in the case, the court decided based on the plaintiff's evidence and granted temporary orders to stop the defendant from using the copied elements. This shows how courts protect original product designs and words in competitive markets like cosmetics.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited, sells skincare products under the brand O3+. They own registered trademarks for D-TAN, DERMOMELAN, and SHINE & GLOW, which they use on facial kits like O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Radiant & Glowing Skin, O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Glowing Skin, and O3+ Shine & Glow Kit. These marks were adopted years ago: DERMOMELAN in 2008, D-TAN in 2009, and SHINE & GLOW in 2011. The plaintiff has spent a lot on advertising, over 21 crore rupees from 2004 to 2021, and their sales are high, like over 18 crores for D-TAN in 2020-21. Their products are promoted in magazines, online stores like Amazon, and social media. The defendant, Freecia Professional India Private Limited, sells similar kits under PROADS, like Proads Bridal Facial Kit Radiant Smooth Glowing Skin, Proads Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Enriched Glowing Skin, and Proads Facial Kit Shine & Glowing Skin. The plaintiff found out in August 2022 that the defendant copied not just the trademarks but also the exact lists of ingredients and steps to use from their packaging. The plaintiff's products cost over 1000 rupees, while the defendant's are cheaper, around 300-600 rupees. The plaintiff says this copying tricks customers and harms their reputation.
Procedural Detail
The plaintiff filed the suit in 2022 as CS(COMM) 633/2022 in the Delhi High Court, asking for permanent stops on the defendant's actions, damages, and account of profits. They also filed an application I.A. 15016/2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for a temporary stop during the case. The defendant was served, appeared, and filed a written statement defending themselves. But after December 4, 2024, the defendant stopped showing up, so on August 21, 2025, the court proceeded without them, called ex-parte. The plaintiff filed an affidavit on October 28, 2025, showing the defendant's products were still sold online and they bought some on September 17, 2025. The case was heard on November 3, 13, and 21, 2025, with only the plaintiff's lawyer arguing. The court gave its judgment on November 21, 2025, deciding the temporary application and setting the main suit for further steps on February 11, 2026, before a Joint Registrar.
Core Dispute
The main issue was whether the defendant infringed the plaintiff's trademarks D-TAN, DERMOMELAN, and SHINE & GLOW, and copied their copyright in the product packaging, including the lists of ingredients and steps to use. The plaintiff claimed the defendant copied everything word-for-word on similar facial kits, which could confuse customers and ride on their goodwill. The defendant argued the marks are common words describing the products, like removing tan or making skin shine, and the ingredients and steps are standard in the industry, not original. They said many others use similar terms, so no exclusive rights. The plaintiff countered that their marks are unique, coined words with no dictionary meaning for D-TAN and DERMOMELAN, and they have proof of creation and sales. They said just claiming others use it isn't enough without showing big-scale use that hurts their uniqueness. The dispute focused on if there's a strong initial case for infringement, if the plaintiff would suffer big harm without a stop order, and if public interest favors protection.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court Including on Judgement with Complete Citation Referred and Discussed for Reasoning
The court started by summarizing the plaintiff's claims and the defendant's defenses from their written statement, since the defendant wasn't there to argue. It noted the plaintiff has registered trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999: D-TAN in Class 3 from 2010, DERMOMELAN in Class 3 from 2009, and SHINE & GLOW in Class 44 from 2011. The court said these registrations give the plaintiff exclusive rights under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. For copyright, under the Copyright Act, 1957, the court said the unique way the plaintiff wrote the ingredients and steps to use is original literary work, created over time under their supervision, so they own it. The court looked at each product one by one. For the radiant glowing skin kit, it compared pictures and charts showing the defendant copied the ingredients and steps almost exactly, including using D-TAN in step 2. The court said this copying shows bad intent, as there's no reason to copy so closely unless to benefit from the plaintiff's reputation. The defendant claimed it's standard practice and filed some third-party pictures, but the court said those pictures are blurry and don't prove anything, no clear documents were filed. Under Section 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the defendant said descriptive use is allowed, but the court didn't buy it for the full copying. For the vitamin C kit, the court saw the same copying in layout, ingredients, and steps, and again dismissed the defendant's standard practice claim for lack of proof. For the shine and glow kit, the court said the name PROADS SHINE & GLOWING SKIN FACIAL KIT is different enough from SHINE & GLOW, as shine and glowing describe the effect, so no trademark infringement there. But the ingredients and steps were copied, infringing copyright. On DERMOMELAN, the court said it's a coined word, not common, and the defendant's one example of a foreign product doesn't make it generic or justify copying. The defendant mentioned a rectification petition against D-TAN, but the court said that's for later, not now. The court applied the test for temporary injunction from Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: prima facie case (yes, from registrations and copying), balance of convenience (plaintiff would lose goodwill if copying continues), and irreparable harm (yes, confusion and lost sales). No other laws or cases were cited directly; the judgment relied on the acts mentioned and the facts. The court clarified it didn't decide if D-TAN is descriptive finally, as that needs full trial.
Decision
The court granted the temporary injunction. It stopped the defendant, its partners, agents, and anyone connected, from copying the plaintiff's layout, ingredients lists, and steps to use for all three kits, as that infringes copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957. It also stopped them from using DERMOMELAN or anything similar, as that infringes the trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. But it didn't stop the use of SHINE & GLOW in the product name, finding it descriptive and not infringing. The main suit continues, listed for February 11, 2026.
Concluding Note
This case highlights how important it is to protect original words and designs in product packaging, especially in beauty where competition is high. It shows courts will stop clear copying even if the copier claims it's common, if there's no strong proof. For businesses, it means creating unique content pays off, and for copiers, it risks quick court orders. Overall, it balances protecting innovation while allowing descriptive words, encouraging fair play in markets.
Case Title: Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited Vs. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr.
Order Date: November 21, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 633/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:633
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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
Here are 5 suitable titles for this legal analytical article to be published as a legal research paper in a legal journal:
Copyright and Trademark Infringement in Product Packaging: Insights from Visage Beauty v. Freecia Professional
Protecting Literary Works in Cosmetic Descriptions: An Analysis of Interim Relief in Delhi High Court
Coined Marks and Slavish Imitation: Judicial Approach to Facial Kit Disputes Under IP Laws
Ex-Parte Injunctions in IP Cases: Evaluating Prima Facie Copying of Ingredients and Usage Steps
Balancing Descriptive Use and Exclusive Rights: Lessons from a Skincare Trademark Battle
=====
**Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction in Skincare Trademark & Copyright Infringement Case**
In a major victory for brand protection in the beauty industry, the Delhi High Court in **Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited v. Freecia Professional India Private Limited & Anr., CS(COMM) 633/2022**, decided on **21st November 2025** by **Hon’ble Ms. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora**, has granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the defendants from copying the plaintiff’s original product descriptions and using the registered trademarks “DERMOMELAN” and “D-TAN” in their competing facial kits.
The plaintiff, owner of the well-known skincare brand O3+, alleged that Freecia Professional (selling under the mark PROADS) had slavishly copied the entire content of three of its premium facial kits — namely the ingredients lists, step-by-step usage instructions, and overall layout and presentation — while also using the plaintiff’s registered trademarks “D-TAN”, “DERMOMELAN”, and “SHINE & GLOW” on almost identical but much cheaper products (priced ₹300-600 against plaintiff’s ₹1,000+). The plaintiff demonstrated long use, registration since 2008-2011, sales running into several crores, and huge advertising expenditure.
Despite being served and initially appearing, the defendants stopped participating after December 2024 and were proceeded against ex-parte in August 2025. The court found overwhelming evidence of verbatim copying of literary and artistic content from the plaintiff’s packaging, which qualifies as original literary work under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court held that such wholesale imitation clearly showed dishonest intention to pass off and ride upon the plaintiff’s reputation.
While the court restrained the defendants from using “DERMOMELAN” and from copying the plaintiff’s ingredients lists and usage steps in all three kits, it refused to restrain the descriptive phrase “Shine & Glowing Skin” in the product name itself, noting that “shine” and “glowing” are common descriptive terms in the beauty trade. The injunction application was accordingly allowed in part, with the main suit now listed for further proceedings.
The judgment reinforces that even functional-looking product instructions and ingredient descriptions can enjoy strong copyright and passing-off protection when copied word-for-word with clear intent to confuse consumers.
**Disclaimer:** This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi
=====
