The High Court of Delhi has issued an interim injunction against Alaina Healthcare Private Limited and A. Menarini India Private Limited, prohibiting them from using the marks ACNE SCAR, ACNE+SCAR, or ACNESCAR for their dermatological products. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited, which alleged that these marks were deceptively similar to its own registered trademark, ACNESTAR, which has been in continuous use since 2005. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav determined that the phonetic and structural similarities between the two marks could cause confusion among consumers, particularly in the competitive pharmaceutical and skincare market.

This judicial intervention requires the defendants to immediately cease the manufacture, advertisement, and distribution of goods under the disputed names. While the court has granted the defendants a two-month window to recall existing stock from distributors and withdraw online product listings, this grace period is strictly limited to inventory recovery and does not permit the continued sale or promotion of products under the infringing labels. The court emphasized that the primary function of the injunction is to safeguard the exclusivity granted by trademark registration, noting that the balance of convenience heavily favored the plaintiff, who has invested significantly in the brand over the past two decades.

The dispute originated after Mankind discovered the presence of the defendants’ scar-focused serum, marketed under the HEXILAK brand with the descriptive addition of ACNE+SCAR. While the defendants argued that the terms used were merely descriptive of the product's intended purpose and protected under sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 , the court found otherwise. Justice Kaurav observed that the manner in which the markings were applied—positioning ACNE+SCAR prominently beneath the HEXILAK brand—suggested an intent to create an independent brand identity rather than a purely functional description. The court noted that "the mark ACNESCAR is phonetically nearly identical to ACNESTAR and, unless the two words are pronounced syllable by syllable, they are indistinguishable."

During the proceedings, the defendants contended that the word "acne" is publici juris—common to the trade—and that they were merely providing a clear description of a serum for post-inflammatory scarring. However, the court rejected this attempt to dissect the trademark. It held that the commonalities between the two names extended beyond the generic prefix, pointing out that the structure of the marks is fundamentally identical save for one character. The court also highlighted that because the defendants admitted their product did not treat active acne, the label ACNE+SCAR provided an inaccurate description, further undermining the defense of bona fide descriptive use.

A significant aspect of the court’s reasoning involved the standard of care required in the pharmaceutical and cosmeceutical sectors. Citing the need to prevent any possibility of consumer error, the court held that both the plaintiff's acne gel and the defendants' scar serum occupy the same trade channels, including both traditional chemists and popular e-commerce platforms. The court affirmed that in instances where products are sold to the same consumer segment and are meant to address related dermatological issues, the distinction between a medicinal drug and a cosmetic serum becomes secondary to the risk of trademark confusion.

The defendants' attempt to justify the concurrent use by citing their own long-standing HEXILAK registration was also deemed insufficient. While the court acknowledged that HEXILAK and the house mark MENARINI could continue to be used, it emphasized that the added house brand does not negate the infringement of the primary identifier ACNESTAR. "Added matter is immaterial in an action for infringement once the essential features of the registered mark are adopted," the court remarked. This observation reinforces the strict standard applied when a defendant's sub-branding mimics the core elements of a well-established registered mark, regardless of the presence of an accompanying house name.

Procedurally, this decision revives an earlier dispute where an ex parte injunction had been placed in abeyance to allow for a full hearing. After reviewing the submissions, including the defendants' extensive sales history since 2022 and documentation regarding their clinical studies, Justice Kaurav concluded that these factors did not outweigh the statutory rights held by Mankind. The court clarified that while innocence in adopting a mark may be relevant in some contexts, it does not constitute a valid defense against an established infringement claim. The court maintained that the injury caused by the erosion of trademark exclusivity is irreparable and cannot be adequately compensated by financial damages alone, especially when public interest is involved in ensuring there is no confusion between healthcare products.

The litigation remains ongoing, with the next hearing scheduled for March 2, 2027. By this date, the court expects the defendants to have successfully removed the impugned marks from their entire distribution chain. Until then, the injunction stands as a firm reminder to manufacturers to verify the uniqueness of their branding against existing registrations to avoid the disruption of being forced to withdraw products from the market, which can often exceed the costs associated with initial market entry and branding development. The court’s order ensures that the integrity of the ACNESTAR trademark remains intact while providing the defendants the practical means to clear their existing stock without facing immediate contempt, provided they comply with the two-month withdrawal deadline.