Delhi High Court: Single-Judge Erred In Denying Relief To Forest Essentials In Trademark Case
Recently, the Delhi High Court noted that the single-judge may have prima facie made an error in declining to provide
By: : Ajay Singh
Update: 2024-06-03 10:15 GMT
Delhi High Court: Single-Judge Erred In Denying Relief To Forest Essentials In Trademark Case
Recently, the Delhi High Court noted that the single-judge may have prima facie made an error in declining to provide interim relief to Forest Essentials, a company specializing in Ayurvedic cosmetics, skincare, and perfumes, in a trademark dispute against Baby Forest, a company manufacturing Ayurvedic baby care products.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju made a preliminary observation that the single-judge's interpretation of the doctrine of 'initial interest confusion' appeared to be incorrect in rejecting relief for Forest Essentials.
"Prima facie, we find merit in the appellant’s contention that the learned single-judge has erred in its interpretation of the doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’ to entail persistence of confusion till a stage that the transaction is consummated. The doctrine of ‘initial interest confusion’ entails that there is confusion only at the initial stage, and there is no confusion when the transaction for sale or purchase is completed. The customers are in no doubt about the product they are buying when the sale is completed. The confusion is only at the initial stage,” the Division Bench observed.
Consequently, the Bench issued a notice to Baby Forest regarding Forest Essentials' appeal against the single-judge order and scheduled the case for further hearing on September 9.
In a decision issued on May 15, Justice Anish Dayal declined to grant interim relief to Forest Essentials.
The Court noted that the term 'forest' is generic, and Forest Essentials could not assert dominance over a portion of its trademark without separately registering it.
Regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the products of the two companies, the single judge remarked that the packaging and logos were markedly dissimilar.
The single-judge emphasized that a couple of social media references were insufficient to demonstrate 'widespread confusion' or the likelihood thereof.
Furthermore, the single judge ruled that a Google search suggestion alone was inadequate evidence of confusion, as Google's algorithms consider various factors.
Subsequently, Forest Essentials appealed to the Division Bench.