Delhi HC Sides with Lotus Herbals: Halts 'Lotus Splash' in High-Profile Cosmetics Clash

In a significant win for established cosmetic brands, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has overturned a single judge's refusal to grant an injunction, restraining Deepika Padukone-backed 82°E from using the mark "Lotus Splash" on its facial cleanser. Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar ruled that the mark infringes Lotus Herbals Private Limited's prior "Lotus" registrations under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 , rejecting claims of mere descriptive use under Section 30(2)(a) .

From Herbal Legacy to Modern Splash: The Battle Unfolds

Lotus Herbals, a veteran in beauty and hygiene products since 1993 with over 55 "Lotus" trademarks registered since 1996 in Classes 3 and 5, boasts massive goodwill—turnovers exceeding ₹695 crores in 2022-23 and IPL sponsorships like Kings XI Punjab. Their products, from face washes to creams, prominently feature stylized "Lotus" logos protected by copyright.

Enter DPKA Universal Consumer Ventures (behind 82°E, launched post-2021 incorporation) and its celebrity-endorsed face cleanser launched around January 2023 : "Lotus Splash Conditioning Cleanser with Lotus and Bioflavonoids." Sold online at 82e.com and in stores, it lists "Lotus Splash" prominently atop packaging, with "82°E" at the base. Lotus Herbals sued in CS(COMM) 454/2023, seeking injunction via IA 12308/2023 under Order XXXIX CPC . Single judge dismissed it on January 25, 2024 , citing descriptiveness. Lotus appealed in FAO(OS)(COMM) 45/2024, leading to today's reversal on February 16, 2026 .

Lotus Herbals' Arsenal: Prior Use and Deceptive Similarity

Appellant Lotus Herbals, via Sr. Adv. Chander M. Lall , hammered home prima facie infringement under Section 29: marks similar ("Lotus Splash" embeds "Lotus"), identical goods (cosmetics like face wash), and consumer confusion—evident in Google searches blending their products, invoices billing "Lotus Splash" sans "82°E," and respondents' keyword buys for "Lotus Face Wash." They spotlighted concealment: 82°E applied for trademarks on sibling products like "Turmeric Shield" and "Ashwagandha Bounce" but skipped "Lotus Splash," signaling trademark intent, not description. "Lotus Splash" isn't purely descriptive—it requires imagination (lotus isn't "splashed"), functions as sub-brand under "82°E," diluting their 30-year goodwill. Passing off loomed large, invoking Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. for average consumer confusion.

82°E's Defense: Just Describing Lotus Extracts?

Respondents, represented by Sr. Adv. Dayan Krishnan and Pravin Anand , countered that "Lotus Splash" descriptively flags lotus extracts as key ingredient ("Nelumbo Nucifera") in a splash-on cleanser, shielded by Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 . Consistent with their lineup—"Patchouli Glow," "Licorice Beam"—it pairs under umbrella "82°E." Packaging clarifies "with lotus and bioflavonoids"; price, get-up, and celebrity pull (Deepika Padukone) avert confusion. No monopoly on "Lotus" for botanicals; precedents like Marico Ltd. v. Agro Tech Foods Ltd. affirm bona fide descriptive use trumps infringement claims.

Bench Dissects the Splash: Why Description Falls Flat

The Division Bench zeroed in on trademark "use" under Section 2(2)(c) : "Lotus Splash" dominates packaging, Google ads, and invoices— not mere ingredient tag. Unlike true descriptors below it ("conditioning cleanser with lotus..."), it acts as sub-brand, akin to rejected defenses in Hem Corpn. Pvt Ltd. v. ITC Ltd. and Piruz Khambatta v. Soex India Pvt. Ltd. . Single judge's own findings—similarity, identical goods, confusion—triggered Section 29; Section 30(2)(a) demands holistic view sans dissection, failing here due to prominence over "82°E," concealment of other TM applications, and prior user supremacy ( S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai ). Tests like imagination/competitor need (persuasively from McCarthy) tipped against descriptiveness. Even if suggestive, association with Lotus Herbals' fame risks " initial interest confusion ."

Precedents shone: Cadila Health Care for average consumer lens; Procter & Gamble v. Anchor Health against post-hoc descriptiveness; Zydus Wellness v. Cipla for standalone mark evaluation. Single judge inconsistencies (confusion yet no injunction) sealed reversal.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The words 'Lotus Splash' are being used as a mark and as such cannot be construed as indicative of the quality/characteristic of the product as a face wash/facial cleanser."

"If the terms 'Lotus Splash' was a descriptor..., then the phrase 'conditioning cleanser with lotus and bioflavonoids' below 'Lotus Splash' would become redundant."

"A sub-brand does not fall outside the ambit of the provisions applicable to trade marks."

"The trademark of the respondents '82°E' is at the base of the bottle as against the mark/phrase 'Lotus Splash', which occupies a more prominent place."

Injunction Flows: Protecting the Lotus Pond

The court granted full interim relief: Respondents restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising "Lotus Splash" or "Lotus" derivatives akin to plaintiff's mark till suit disposal. Prima facie only, no trial prejudice. Balance favors prior user (₹500cr+ sales vs. 82°E's nascent launch); irreparable dilution looms. Future cases? Reinforces vigilance against sub-brands masquerading as descriptors, prioritizing source identification over ingredient nods—especially versus storied marks.

This ruling underscores: even botanicals can't "splash" into famous territory unchecked.