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.

Core Dispute

• Use of the name “Lotus Splash” on a face cleanser.
• Alleged similarity with the established “Lotus” brand.
• Claim of descriptive use versus trademark infringement.

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.

Key Judicial Findings

• “Lotus” was the dominant and striking element in both marks.
• Prominent display suggested trademark use, not mere description.
• Descriptive defence requires honest and limited explanatory use.
• Strong prior reputation increases likelihood of passing off.

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.

Case Details