The Delhi High Court has dismissed an software filed in opposition to Bollywood actor Deepika Padukone‘s company from using the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ for a facewash/ face cleanser product. An interim injunction plea was moved by a company, Lotus Herbal Private Limited.

Also Read: ‘Chuna Laga Diya’: Netflix faces backlash after Ranbir Kapoor’s Animal arrives without Extended Cut

Earlier, Lotus Herbal sued the actress and her company DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures for using the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ for his or her beauty product.

Justice C Hari Shankar said that the merchandise exhibited important dissimilarities in look, with substantial value variations, and located no grounds for a passing-off case.

The court docket mentioned the one frequent factor between the 2 manufacturers was the phrase “lotus”.

The court docket mentioned the buyer would pay attention to the distinction between ‘Lotus Splash’ and the plaintiff’s Lotus household of merchandise. “It cannot be said that the defendants are seeking to pass off their product as the plaintiff’s product,” it mentioned. The court docket additionally famous that ‘Lotus Splash’ was indicative of the traits of the products and, due to this fact, the usage of the mark was not thought-about infringing.

Moreover, it famous the presence of the ’82°E’ model identify on the decrease fringe of the defendants’ product bottles, which might be evident to customers in a retail setting.

Lotus Herbals had sought a everlasting injunction in opposition to Dpka Universal Consumer Ventures Private Limited, the proprietor of 82°E, to forestall the usage of ‘Lotus’ as a part of the mark for his or her product.

Dismissing Lotus Herbals’ software for an interim injunction, the court docket defined that at a prima facie stage, a client would unlikely affiliate the ‘Lotus Herbals’ product with ‘Lotus Splash’, given the predominant use of ‘Lotus’ in each names.

“In as much as the mark ‘Lotus Splash’ is indicative of the characteristics of the goods, the use of the mark cannot be regarded as infringing in nature. If there is no infringement, there can be no injunction,” concluded the court docket.

(With IANS inputs)