Delhi High CourtIntellectual Property LawCommercial and Corporate Law

Descriptive Marks Devoid of Secondary Meaning and Common to Trade are Ineligible for Trademark Protection.

Honasa Consumer Ltdv.Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Descriptive Marks Devoid of Secondary Meaning and Common to Trade are Ineligible for Trademark Protection.. Honasa Consumer Ltd vs Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.. Delhi High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Petitioner qualifies as an "aggrieved person" under Section 57 to maintain the rectification petition.

The court held

no citation

01Facts

The Petitioner, incorporated in 2016, launched "AQUALOGICA" skincare products in 2021.

¶ 2, 3

Respondent No. 1 is the registered proprietor of the trademark "D-TAN" (Registration No. 2065580 in Class 3), applied for in 2010 with a user claim from 2009.

¶ 2, 9

On 14.04.2023, Respondent No. 1 issued a cease-and-desist notice to the Petitioner, alleging that the Petitioner’s product "AQUALOGICA DETAN + DEWY SUNSCREEN" infringed its "D-TAN" mark.

¶ 3

The Petitioner responded that "D-TAN" is a descriptive term common to the trade and subsequently filed this rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking removal of the mark from the Register.

¶ 1, 4, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Petitioner qualifies as an "aggrieved person" under Section 57 to maintain the rectification petition.

¶ 28

ii.2. Whether the mark "D-TAN" is descriptive of the goods and devoid of distinctive character, making it ineligible for registration under Section 9(1).

¶ 6.1, 10

iii.3. Whether the mark "D-TAN" has acquired a "secondary meaning" through long and extensive use to overcome the bar of descriptiveness.

¶ 7.8, 27

03Law Applied

Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows an "aggrieved person" to seek rectification of the register for marks entered without sufficient cause.

¶ 1, 28

Section 9(1)(a) regarding marks devoid of distinctive character and Section 9(1)(b) regarding marks designating the kind, quality, or intended purpose of goods.

¶ 10, 14

Section 12 regarding "honest concurrent use" as a potential exception to absolute grounds of refusal.

¶ 14

The principle from Hardie Trading Ltd. v. Addison’s Paint and Chemicals Ltd. to define an "aggrieved person".

¶ 6.7, 28

McArthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition to evaluate the "descriptiveness" of a mark based on dictionary meanings and industry usage.

¶ 22

Provisions in the judgment · 8 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 2Section 9Section 11Section 12Section 28Section 30Section 35Section 57

04Reasoning

The court found the Petitioner to be an "aggrieved person" because the Respondent’s cease-and-desist notice restricted the Petitioner's lawful trade.

05Holding

no citation

Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF

Honasa Consumer LtdvsVisage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Delhi High Court · June 19, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment