.
Trademark Case Digest – 16 February 2026
TM Class: Class 5 – Health / Pharmaceutical / Wellness Goods
Head Note:
The Delhi High Court, Commercial Division (Division Bench of Hon’ble Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar) granted interim injunction in a trademark dispute involving “Lotus Splash”, examining similarity and the scope of the statutory defence under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Court:
Delhi High Court, Commercial Division – Division Bench of Hon’ble Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar
Date of Judgment: 16 February 2026
Case Citation: Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd. vs. DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited – Interim Order dated 16 February 2026
Judgment
Background Facts:
The plaintiff, proprietor of a registered trademark incorporating the term “Lotus”, initiated proceedings alleging infringement and passing off against the defendant’s use of the expression “Lotus Splash” in relation to products containing lotus extract. The plaintiff sought interim injunctive relief on grounds of deceptive similarity and likelihood of confusion.
Issues Considered:
Whether the defendant’s use of “Lotus Splash” was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark.
Whether the defendant could invoke the statutory exception under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Whether ingredient-indicative or descriptive use could defeat a claim of infringement at the interim stage.
Court’s Observations:
The Court examined the competing rights and the scope of Section 30(2)(a), which permits use of indications concerning kind, quality, intended purpose or other characteristics of goods, provided such use is in accordance with honest commercial practices.
The Bench considered whether the term “Lotus” in the impugned mark was used descriptively to indicate ingredient or characteristic, or whether it functioned as a source identifier creating confusion with the plaintiff’s mark.
The Court observed that while descriptive use may fall within statutory protection, similarity analysis must consider overall commercial impression, likelihood of confusion, and balance of convenience at the interim stage.
Final Decision:
The Delhi High Court granted interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark pending further proceedings, holding that a prima facie case of similarity and likelihood of confusion was made out at this stage.
Takeaway:
This decision highlights that while Section 30(2)(a) offers statutory protection for descriptive or characteristic use, courts will closely scrutinise whether such use is genuinely descriptive or operates as a badge of origin. In similarity disputes involving ingredient-based expressions, the overall commercial impression and risk of consumer confusion remain decisive factors.
Advisory:
When responding to Examination Reports or similarity objections in Class 5 and allied goods, practitioners should:
• Carefully assess whether the contested element is descriptive of ingredient or product characteristic;
• Structure submissions under Section 30(2)(a) only where bona fide descriptive use can be substantiated;
• Simultaneously distinguish the mark on overall visual, phonetic and structural parameters to mitigate Section 11 objections.
Reliance solely on descriptive defence without clear factual foundation may not succeed, particularly at interim or prima facie stages.
Vishnu
Trademark Advisory
Mobile: +919866512479
Disclaimer:
This article is for awareness, and knowledge-sharing for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal opinion.
