Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark “LOTUS SALON” or any deceptively similar variation in connection with beauty salon or cosmetic services. Justice Tejas Karia held that the plaintiff, owner of the well-known trademark ‘LOTUS’, had successfully established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999
The Court noted that this was a case of “triple identity”, as the marks, nature of goods/services, and trade channels were identical. The defendant’s use of the mark was held to be dishonest and intended to ride upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s brand. The injunction will remain operative until the next hearing.
“The defendant’s use of the impugned marks is prima facie dishonest and nothing but an attempt to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s marks so as to cause confusion in the market.”
Facts
The plaintiff, a reputed Indian cosmetic and wellness company incorporated in 1993, has been engaged in the marketing of skincare, haircare, and beauty products under its house mark ‘LOTUS’ for nearly three decades. The brand enjoys an extensive market presence, with over 1,87,600 retail outlets, 25,600 salons, and 26 exclusive “Lotus” brand outlets across Indiaorderlotus-herbals-v-lotus-beau….
It owns several registered trademarks including LOTUS, LOTUS HERBALS PROFESSIONAL SALON, LOTUS SALON DE BEAUTE, LOTUS BEAUTY ACADEMY, and LOTUS SPA. The Registrar of Trade Marks recently declared ‘LOTUS’ a well-known mark, advertised in Trade Mark Journal No. 2206 dated 28 April 2025.
In July 2025, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was using the mark LOTUS SALON for beauty services and advertising it on social media and its website (lotusunisexsalon.com). Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice in July 2025, the defendant not only continued the use but also filed trademark applications for LOTUS SALON on a “proposed to be used” basis after the legal notice was served.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff, as the registered proprietor of the well-known mark LOTUS, is entitled to protection against the use of LOTUS SALON for identical or similar services.
- Whether the defendant’s mark amounts to infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Whether a case for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction is made out.
Petitioner’s arguments
The plaintiff argued that the mark LOTUS has acquired immense distinctiveness and recognition in the beauty and wellness industry through decades of continuous use, extensive advertising, and celebrity endorsements. It submitted that its sales exceeded ₹6,500 crore in FY 2024–25 and that it had spent nearly ₹98 crore in advertising in the same period.
The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s adoption of LOTUS SALON was not innocent, as the defendant’s trademark application was filed after receiving the legal notice. This deliberate conduct demonstrated bad faith and an intent to exploit the brand’s reputation.
It was further argued that this was a “triple identity” case where (i) the mark was identical, (ii) the products and services were identical, and (iii) the customer base and trade channels were identical. The plaintiff maintained that such conduct amounted to blatant infringement and passing off and prayed for an immediate injunction.
Respondent’s arguments
The defendant did not appear at the preliminary stage, and the injunction was considered ex parte. However, based on the record, the Court noted that the defendant had filed trademark applications for LOTUS SALON on a “proposed to be used” basis, even after receiving the legal notice, showing clear knowledge of the plaintiff’s prior rights.
The plaintiff also demonstrated that the defendant had actively promoted its services online under the impugned mark, indicating an intention to trade on the goodwill of the established “Lotus” brand.
Analysis of the law
Justice Karia analyzed the case within the framework of Sections 28, 29, and 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, emphasizing that registration confers exclusive rights on the proprietor of the trademark, and any unauthorized use in relation to identical or similar goods amounts to infringement.
The Court observed that the plaintiff’s mark “LOTUS” was not only registered across multiple classes but had also attained the legal status of a well-known trademark. As per Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act, well-known marks enjoy broader protection, even across unrelated goods or services.
The Judge also referred to the principle of triple identity, where infringement is established when the mark, product, and trade channels are the same. In such cases, confusion is presumed, and the plaintiff need not establish actual deception or loss.
The Court also relied on the presumption of validity under Section 31, reinforcing that once a mark is registered, its ownership cannot be lightly challenged at the interim stage.
Precedent analysis
- Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382): Applied to exempt the plaintiff from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, since the matter involved urgent interim relief.
- Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. v. J.P. & Co. (AIR 1972 SC 1359): The Supreme Court held that deceptive similarity must be assessed from the overall impression of the mark, not its minute details.
- Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004) 3 SCC 90: Established that once infringement is shown, injunction must follow; delay or acquiescence cannot defeat an injunction.
- Kaviraj Pandit Dura Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980): Clarified that in infringement, similarity of marks alone suffices; evidence of actual confusion is unnecessary.
The Court applied these precedents to hold that the defendant’s actions clearly constituted infringement and passing off.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the plaintiff’s trademark LOTUS had achieved immense recognition and market reputation through decades of continuous use and significant investment. The plaintiff’s annual turnover and advertising expenditure demonstrated the scale of its operations and the mark’s goodwill.
Justice Karia observed that the defendant’s use of LOTUS SALON was “prima facie dishonest”, intended to cause confusion among consumers who associate the word “LOTUS” with the plaintiff’s products and services.
“This is a case of triple identity where the mark is identical, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical.”
The Court further noted that the balance of convenience lay entirely in the plaintiff’s favour and that irreparable harm would ensue if the injunction were not granted.
Accordingly, the defendant and all related persons were restrained from using the marks “LOTUS SALON”, “LOTUS BEAUTY PARLOUR”, or any deceptively similar mark across all digital and physical platforms until the next hearing.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the application for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the infringing marks. The Court held that the plaintiff’s mark LOTUS enjoys statutory protection and commercial distinctiveness, being declared a well-known mark.
The injunction prevents the defendant, its partners, directors, employees, and affiliates from advertising, offering, or providing salon services under the impugned marks or any other deceptively similar mark. The Court directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks and scheduled the next hearing for February 2026.
Implications
This order reinforces the strong protection accorded to well-known trademarks in India and affirms that the triple identity test will automatically trigger an injunction in infringement cases. It also highlights that trademark owners can seek urgent relief without mandatory pre-institution mediation when immediate damage to goodwill is at stake.
The decision acts as a reminder that businesses must conduct due diligence before adopting brand names, as using a registered or reputed mark invites swift judicial restraint.
