A recent legal battle unfolded when the Plaintiff sought relief for the infringement of their registered trademark, LOTUS, against the Defendant's trademark, LOTUS SPLASH. While the court acknowledged the similarity between the trademarks, resulting in a prima facie case of infringement, a nuanced examination of the Defense under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trademarks Act led to a surprising outcome.

Trademark Similarity and Prima Facie Infringement:
The court, in its preliminary assessment, found the trademarks of both the Plaintiff and Defendant to be similar, laying the foundation for a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The contention centered around the distinctiveness of the term "LOTUS" and its potential confusion with "LOTUS SPLASH."

Evaluation of Defense under Section 30(2)(a):
Despite the prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff, the court delved into the Defense raised by the Defendant under Section 30(2)(a) of the Trademarks Act. This section provides a defense when the use of a trademark is indicative of the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, or the time of production of goods or rendering of services.

Defendant's Use of LOTUS SPLASH:
The court scrutinized the Defendant's use of the trademark LOTUS SPLASH and found that it was indicative of the character of the Defendant's product. Notably, the court recognized that "lotus" was a crucial ingredient in the Defendant's product. This acknowledgment played a pivotal role in granting the Defendant the benefit of Section 30(2)(a).

Impact on Interim Injunction:
While the Plaintiff established a prima facie case of trademark infringement, the court declined to grant an interim injunction. The decision hinged on the recognition that the Defendant's use of LOTUS SPLASH was tied to the essential character of their product, and therefore, fell within the protective ambit of Section 30(2)(a).

Unique Legal Scenario:
This case presents a unique legal scenario where despite a prima facie finding of trademark infringement in favor of the Plaintiff, the Defense under Section 30(2)(a) proved instrumental in denying the relief of an interim injunction. The court's nuanced approach highlights the importance of considering the contextual elements surrounding the use of a trademark, especially when such use is indicative of specific product characteristics.

Conclusion:
The LOTUS vs. LOTUS SPLASH case serves as a compelling example of the intricate nature of trademark disputes. The interplay between trademark similarity, prima facie infringement, and the statutory defenses provided under Section 30(2)(a) underscores the need for a comprehensive evaluation in trademark litigation.

Case Title:Lotus Herbal Pvt. Ltd. Vs DPKA Universal Consumer Pvt Ltd.
Order Date:25.01.2024
Case No.CS(COMM) 454/2023
Neutral Citation:2024:DHC:565
Name of Court:Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hari Shankar, H.J.

Disclaimer:
Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539