Delhi HC rejects copyright plea against Deepika Padukone's 82e: Report

The Delhi High Court declined to issue an injunction against Deepika Padukone's self-care brand, 82e, in a lawsuit brought by Lotus Herbals over copyright infringement, as reported by NDTV.

Lotus Herbals filed a petition, raising concerns about Deepika's brand employing the name 'Lotus Splash' for its face wash. The company claims infringement of its registered 'Lotus' marks and misrepresentation of an association with Lotus Herbal. The brand boasts that the company has more than 1,000 products under the trademark of 'Lotus' since 1993.

It issued a notice to 82e instructing to discontinue the use of the name 'Lotus Splash'. Subsequently, Lotus filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against its usage.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing Lotus mentioned that 82e initially provided misinformation by stating that it had not submitted any trademark applications for its products, including 'Patchouli Glow,' 'Turmeric Shield' and 'Licorice Beam.' When this was presented to the court, it referred to it as a "lawyer's error."

82e claimed that it did not apply for the registration of the mark 'Lotus Splash' and utilised 'Lotus' in 'Lotus Splash' in a descriptive manner. Sibal's argument suggested a misalignment between the defendants' assertion of 'Lotus Splash' being descriptive and the trademark applications it had actually filed.

On the other side, Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, representing 82e, argued that the utilisation of the mark was not with the intention of infringing on the registered 'LOTUS' trademark of Lotus Herbals but rather to describe specific characteristics or features of the face wash product.

The court observed that the product names used by the defendants, including 'Lotus Splash', followed a pattern of indicating the main ingredient, akin to other products such as 'Turmeric Shield' and 'Patchouli Glow'. It determined that the term 'Lotus Splash' conveys the primary constituent of the face wash, which is lotus flower extract.

Consequently, the court concluded that there was no infringement or passing off and dismissed the injunction.