Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Against Deepika Padukone's '82e' In Copyright Infringement

The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to grant an injunction against Deepika Padukone's self-care brand "82e" in a suit instituted by Lotus Herbals Pvt. for copyright infringement.

In the case at hand, the plaintiff, with over 1,000 products under the trademark Lotus since 1993, objected to Padukone's brand's use of the name "Lotus Splash" for their face wash. The company alleged infringement of their registered "LOTUS" marks and misrepresentation of an association with the plaintiff.

After issuing a notice to cease using "Lotus Splash," the plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against its use by "82e".

Discussions were held in March 2021 for defendant 2 to be an agent of the plaintiff, which did not materialise, said Senior Aadvocate Akhil Sibal, representing the plaintiff. The defendants were allegedly aware of the pre-existing registered "Lotus" formative marks.

Sibal emphasised that the "82e" initially made a misstatement by claiming they had not filed any trademark application for marks like "Patchouli Glow," "Turmeric Shield," "Licorice Beam".

However, when this misstatement was brought to the court's attention, the defendants termed it a "lawyer's error." They asserted that they had not sought registration for the mark "Lotus Splash" and were using "lotus" in "Lotus Splash" in a descriptive manner.

Sibal's argument implied that the defendants presenting the use of "Lotus Splash" as descriptive did not align with the actual trademark applications they had filed.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing 82e, aimed to leverage the provisions of Section 30(2)(a).

This section stipulates that the use of a registered trademark in connection with goods or services, for the purpose of indicating various attributes such as kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, time of production of goods, or characteristics of services, would not be considered trademark infringement.

He contended that their use of the mark was not intended to infringe on the registered "LOTUS" trademarks of Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd. but rather to describe certain characteristics or features of their face wash product.

Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate, served as the arguing counsel, while the defendants were represented by the legal team of the Anand and Naik law firm, including Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Dhruv Anand, Madhu Gadodia, Udita Patro, and others.

The court noted that the defendants' product names, including "Lotus Splash," were indicative of their main ingredient, similar to other products like "Turmeric Shield" and "Patchouli Glow."

The use of "Lotus Splash" was found to be inherently indicative of the face wash's primary constituent, lotus flower extract. The court ruled that there was no infringement or passing off, and it denied the injunction.