Decided on: 16 February 2026
Coram: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Vinod Kumar
Citation:2026 SCC OnLine Del 540
Introduction
In a recent decision, the Division bench of the Delhi High Court analyzed the scope of defense of descriptive use under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The dispute involves Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd (“Lotus Herbals/ Appellant”)., a prominent brand in the cosmetics and skincare industry and DPKA Universal Ventures Pvt. Ltd. (“DPKA/ Respondent”), a skincare and wellness company trading as 82°E founded by the renowned actor Deepika Padukone.
The Court’s ruling carefully examines the distinction between commercial use of a trademark and ‘permissible descriptive use’ of a trademark, especially when the trademark in question forms a prominent part of a registered trademark.
Factual Background
Lotus Herbals is the registered proprietor of trademark “Lotus Herbals” and a family of “LOTUS” formative marks in relation to cosmetics, skincare, and personal care goods. The first “LOTUS” formative mark registered by the entity dates back to 1996.
In 2023, Lotus Herbals became aware of DPKA’s skincare products launched under the trademark “82°E”. One of DPKA’s facial cleanser was branded as “Lotus Splash” and marketed as a conditioning cleanser containing lotus flower extracts and bio flavonoid. On the packaging of the product, the phrase “Lotus Splash” was highlighted.
Lotus Herbals claimed that the term ‘LOTUS’ was the main and fundamental feature of the registered trademarks, and the whole word mark ‘LOTUS’ was also incorporated into the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ that too for similar products. The Appellant also argued that the term ‘Lotus Splash’ was being used as a trademark and as a sub-brand for the product.
On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the use of the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ owning to the fact that the product contained lotus flower extracts, which were an indicator of the content and use of the product. It was argued that ‘Lotus’ was an indicator of the content of the product, while ‘Splash’ indicated the use of the product. The Respondents used Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999 (“Act”) to argue that the use of the product was valid and did not amount to infringement.
The Ld. Single Judge vide order dated 25.01.2024, despite of holding that the mark LOTUS SPLASH is infringing the Appellant’s registered trademark LOTUS under Section 29 of the Act declined the interim injunction to the Appellant holding that Section 30(2)(a) of the Act is a complete exception to Section 29 of the Act. That under Section 30(2)(a) use of a registered trademark to indicate the characteristics of goods would not constitute infringement.
Analysis
The question that came before the Division Bench was whether the Respondents were eligible to claim protection under Section 30(2)(a) of the Act on the premise that ‘Lotus Splash’ described the components and usage of the product.
The Division Bench disagreed with the findings of the Single Judge and reversed the said order. The Court noted that the material placed on record suggested that the phrase ‘Lotus Splash’ was not merely used as a description of ingredients but was in fact being used as the name of the product. In this regard, the Court referred to the manner in which the product was sold on online platforms and invoices, where the product appeared as ‘Lotus Splash conditioning cleanser.’ In certain instances the product was identified primarily by the expression ‘Lotus Splash,’ with no prominent reference to the house mark “82°E.”
Another factor which weighed with the Court was that Respondent had purchased the keywords such as ‘lotus face wash’ so that their product appeared among the sponsored search results on search engines. The Division Bench observed that such conduct indicated that the respondents intended to use the term ‘LOTUS’ in a trademark sense rather than merely as a descriptor.
Further, the respondents had applied for trademark registration for several other product names in their range, such as “Turmeric Shield,” “Licorice Beam,” and “Ashwagandha Bounce”, but had not applied for registration of “Lotus Splash.” This inconsistency raised questions regarding the bona fides of the defence that the expression was purely descriptive.
The Court also agreed with Appellants contention that the prominent placement of ‘Lotus Splash’ could create an initial impression of association with Lotus Herbals, which is sufficient to constitute initial interest confusion.
The Division Bench ultimately held that the defence under Section 30(2)(a) of the Act was not available to the respondents. While the word ‘Lotus’ could arguably describe an ingredient, the phrase ‘Lotus Splash’ was being used as a sub-mark or product name, and therefore functioned as a trademark rather than a mere description.
Conclusion
This judgment acts as a timely reminder of the need for ingredient-based brand development strategies that are carefully planned so that the line between description and appropriation is not crossed. The judgment reiterates that ingredient-based naming strategies cannot be used to circumvent existing trademark rights where the expression functions as a source identifier rather than a mere description.