Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia has restrained a beauty salon from using the name “Lotus Salon” or any mark deceptively similar to “Lotus”, a popular personal care and cosmetics brand, observing that there was prima facie evidence of trademark infringement and passing off. The Court held that the plaintiff, engaged in the manufacture and marketing of skincare, haircare, and beauty products under the “Lotus” trademarks, had established prior use and significant market goodwill. Finding that the defendant’s use of the impugned marks for salon services was likely to cause confusion and amounted to dishonest adoption, the Court directed the defendant and its associates to refrain from using the disputed marks until further orders.

The case concerns a dispute between the plaintiff, a long-established company engaged in marketing skincare, haircare and make-up products under the mark ‘LOTUS’, and the defendant, which offers beauty services under the marks ‘LOTUS SALON’ and related variants. The plaintiff approached the High Court seeking a permanent injunction against alleged infringement of its registered trademarks, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, delivery up and damages. The plaintiff stated that it adopted the mark ‘LOTUS’ in 1993 and has used it continuously as its house mark for its extensive range of products. It reported having thousands of Stock Keeping Units and widespread sale through retail outlets, salons and exclusive brand stores. It also asserted that the mark ‘LOTUS’ was declared a well-known trademark and detailed several registrations for its marks in India and abroad.

Also Read: Supreme Court Seeks States’ Responses on Pleas to Stay Anti-Conversion Laws, Amid Concerns Over Growing Curbs on Religious Freedom

The plaintiff submitted that in July 2025 it came across a video on Instagram advertising the defendant’s beauty services using the mark ‘LOTUS SALON’. The plaintiff subsequently discovered the defendant’s website offering services under the impugned marks. After issuing a legal notice dated 09.07.2025, to which no reply was received, the plaintiff learned that the defendant had applied for registration of the impugned marks on a proposed-to-be-used basis on 23.07.2025. The plaintiff contended that the services offered by the defendant were identical or allied to its own goods and services and that the adoption of identical marks was dishonest.

The suit was accompanied by an application for urgent listing, exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, and an application to file additional documents. The plaintiff also filed an interim injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking immediate restraint against the defendant’s use of the impugned marks.

The Court recorded that “the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the Plaintiff’s Marks” and that it had “been able to establish long and continuous use of the Plaintiff’s Marks” in relation to its extensive product range. It noted the plaintiff’s claim of having acquired “goodwill and reputation” through long-term use and promotion. The Court stated that the plaintiff’s turnover for FY 2024–25 was ₹6,50,85,49,473 and further recorded that the defendant’s use of the impugned marks was “prima facie dishonest and nothing but an attempt to ride the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff’s Marks so as to cause confusion in the market.”

The Court observed that the plaintiff had discovered a promotional video on Instagram using the mark ‘LOTUS SALON’ and that the defendant’s website prominently displayed the impugned marks. It also recorded that the defendant applied for registration of the impugned marks after receiving the plaintiff’s legal notice. The Court stated that this was 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.” It noted that the plaintiff, being the prior adopter and registered owner of the marks, was entitled to protection.

The Court observed that a prima facie case existed for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff. It stated that “irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted.” The Court also addressed preliminary applications, allowing urgent listing and exemptions. It granted exemption from pre-institution mediation on the ground that the matter involved urgent interim relief, referencing the decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi.

Also Read: Delhi High Court: International Workers Employed In India Required To Contribute To Employees’ Provident Fund

The Court directed that “till the next date of hearing, the Defendant, its directors, proprietors, partners, associates, assigns or assignees in interest, heirs, successors or successors in interest, permitted assigns, sister concerns or group companies, distributors, dealers, wholesalers, retailers, stockiest, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained from using, soliciting, providing services and advertising in any manner including on the internet and e-commerce platform… under the Impugned Marks, ‘LOTUS SALON’ … or any other Mark… identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Marks.”

It ordered filing of reply within four weeks and rejoinder before the next hearing. “The compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC be done within two weeks.”

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Ms. Aamna Hasan & Ms. Aarya Deshmukh, Advocates

Case Title: Lotus Herbals Private Limited v. Lotus Beauty Salon Private Limited
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1153/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia