Trademark for ‘GLASS SKIN’ Invalidated as Descriptive of Intended Purpose and End Result of Cosmetic Products

The Petitioner, Renee Cosmetics (incorporated in 2019), sought the cancellation of the trademark 'GLASS SKIN' registered by Respondent No. 1 in Class 03

Respondent No. 1 had applied for the mark on a "proposed to be used" basis in May 2019 and was granted registration

In March 2025, Respondent No. 1 issued a legal notice to the Petitioner for infringement regarding the Petitioner’s product ‘RENEE GLASS SKIN SPF 50’

Subsequently, the Petitioner’s listings were removed from Amazon following an infringement complaint by Respondent No. 1

The Petitioner filed the present rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, contending that 'GLASS SKIN' is a generic/descriptive term originating from a 2017 Korean beauty trend and cannot be monopolized

1. Whether the trademark ‘GLASS SKIN’ is descriptive of the goods or intended purpose, or whether it is "suggestive" and inherently distinctive

2. Whether the entry of the mark ‘GLASS SKIN’ in the Register of Trade Marks was made without sufficient cause and should be removed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The court applied Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits the registration of marks consisting exclusively of marks or indications that serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, intended purpose, or other characteristics of the goods

It relied on the "hierarchy of marks" principle, distinguishing between arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic marks

The court further applied tests from McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, specifically para 11.16 (definition of descriptive marks based on intended purpose or end effect) and para 11.69 (use by competitors and media as evidence of descriptiveness)

The court rejected the Respondent’s argument that ‘GLASS SKIN’ is "suggestive" (requiring an "imagination test"), holding instead that the term is directly descriptive of the intended purpose and end effect of the skin-care goods

The court analyzed evidence including articles from The Hindustan Times (2017) and promotional materials from major competitors like Lakme, Garnier, and Nivea, which used the term to describe a translucent, luminous skin appearance

Crucially, the court noted that Respondent No. 1’s own website used the term descriptively to explain the "Korean beauty technique"

Since the Respondent failed to provide evidence that the mark had acquired "secondary significance" (distinctiveness through extensive use), the mark was found to fall squarely under the absolute grounds for refusal in Section 9(1)(b)

The court also dismissed the "approbate and reprobate" argument against the Petitioner, noting that the Petitioner used the term as part of a composite mark, not as a source identifier

The court held that the entry was made in the Register without sufficient cause and wrongly remains there

The petition was allowed, and the Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to cancel and remove the registration of the mark ‘GLASS SKIN’ (Certificate No. 2825917) from the Register within four weeks

The related suit for infringement was listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar