Calcutta High Court Restrains HUL From Using Glow & Handsome Mark

Calcutta High Court Restrains HUL From Using Glow & Handsome Mark

The Calcutta High Court recently issued an interim order restraining Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) from using the Glow and Handsome mark, which incorporates a fundamental element of Emami's Fair and Handsome trademark.

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur has observed that “Any confusion or deception is damaging. It results in diluting the mark. To some, this may be fair competition or aggressive marketing. To others, trading must not only be honest but must not even unintentionally be unfair,” ruling that HUL deliberately opted for a name change incorporating a significant element of its competitor's product.

The court emphasized that the adoption of the term Glow and Handsome by HUL constitutes a clear exploitation of a significant aspect of the petitioner's trademark, potentially resulting in deception. This conduct is deemed free riding, which inherently lacks fairness. "There exists no distinction between acceptable and unacceptable free riding. All instances of free riding are unjust," stated the court.

Furthermore, the court highlighted the potential harm to Emami's business and reputation due to such misrepresentation. It emphasized that "an unsuspecting purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect memory, who recalls only the word 'Handsome,' is prone to be misled by the misleading indication of 'Handsome,' which has now been deliberately exploited to cause confusion and deception."

In the trademark infringement case brought forth by Emami, the company asserted that the term 'handsome' carried considerable secondary significance and represented a fundamental aspect of its brand identity. Conversely, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) argued that 'Handsome' is purely descriptive and not uniquely associated with Emami.

After considering arguments from both parties, the court recognized Emami's significant investment and commitment to establishing the 'Fair and Handsome' brand. It was noted that HUL's inclusion of 'Handsome' in its product name was a deliberate choice, despite a previous rejection of its application for trademark registration.

The court emphasized HUL's responsibility to prevent confusion or infringement through its branding decisions. It pointed out the series of events leading to the selection of 'Glow and Handsome' as suggestive of unfair tactics and a rush to capitalize on the term 'Handsome.'

The court held that the petitioner, Emami, has successfully demonstrated a strong prima facie case regarding passing off. Additionally, it found that the balance of convenience strongly supports granting the orders requested by Emami. As a result, the court granted interim relief to Emami.