Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Madhu Jain, JJ.
Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited) & Ors. - Respondents
FAO(OS) (COMM) 111 of 2024 & CM APPL. 33733 of 2024, CM APPL. 33736 of 2024
Decided On : 27-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Sr. Adv., with Mr.Essenese Obhan,, Mr.Neel Mason, Ms.Ayesha, Guhathakurta and Ms.Urvika, Aggarwal, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr.Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Sundeep Chatterjee, Mr.Rohan Swarup, Ms.Tanya Arora, Ms.Aastha Verma, Advs.

The court found no infringement due to the distinctiveness of the marks, holding that the word 'FOREST' is generic, and the appellant failed to establish confusion among consumers.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The appellant challenged the dismissal of its applications for an interim injunction against respondents using the marks ‘BABY FOREST’ and ‘BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYURVEDA’. (Para 1)

(B) Proprietorship - The court found that appellant failed to establish proprietorship over ‘FOREST ESSENTIAL BABY’ despite claims of use since 2006, and observed that the word ‘FOREST’ is generic, preventing the appellant from claiming proprietary rights. (Paras 22, 23, 64)

(C) Likelihood of Confusion - The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence of customer confusion due to distinctiveness between the marks at issue, asserting there was no likelihood of customers confusing the marks. (Para 66)

(D) Balance of Convenience - The learned Single Judge held that balance of convenience favored not granting an injunction due to insufficient evidence of confusion. (Para 70) (E)

Result: Appeal dismissed. (Para 72)

Table of Content
1. challenge to previous court judgment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellant's case details and sales figures. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 12)
3. respondents claim rights to their trademark. (Para 10 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. court's reasoning on trademark ownership. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 28)
5. appellant argues for consumer confusion. (Para 30 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. respondents challenge appellant's claims. (Para 43 , 44 , 47 , 48)
7. legal principles governing trademark cases. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 57)
8. conclusion of the court on the appeal. (Para 72 , 73)

JUDGMENT :

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

1. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in I.A. 14373/2023 and I.A.21648/2023 in CS (COMM) 523/2023, titled Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (formerly known as M/S Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said applications filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, ‘CPC’) and refused an interim order of injunction against the respondents herein for restraining them from using the mark ‘BABY FOREST’ and ‘BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA’ (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Challenged Marks’).

2. It is pertinent to mention that, by an undertaking given to the Court on 04.08.2023 in I.A. 14373/2023, the respondents agreed not use the marks ‘SAUNDARYA’ and ‘BABY ESSENTIALS’. Consequently, the controversy stood confined to the Challenged Marks.

Case of the appellant:

3. It is the case of the appellant that it sells product formulations based on the ancient science of Ayurveda, and has been using the mark ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS’ continuously since at least 2000, with annual sales of over Rs. 425 crores. It supplies its products to over 500 hotel chains, has over 150 stores, exports internationally, and is also available online on its own website as well as on the e-commerce platforms such as Amazon (www.amazon.in) and Flipkart (www.flipkart.com).

4. The details of the various marks registered in favour of the appellant are tabulated as under:

5. The appellant further asserts to have continuously sold its ‘Mother and Baby Care’ products since 2006 under its marks ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS-BABY ESSENTIALS’ and ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS BABY’, and claims annual sales of approximately Rs. 15 crores in baby products.

6. It is the case of the appellant that in June 2023, it came across the respondent’s website (https://www.babyforest.in/) and social media pages. After going through the same, it came to know that the respondents have illegally, knowingly and with malice, adopted the Challenged Marks ‘BABY FOREST’ and ‘BABY FOREST–SOHAM OF AYURVEDA’ as well as a similar ‘Tree’ logo for selling ayurveda based products for babies and other allied goods, which are deceptively similar to the appellant’s trademarks ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS’, ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS-BABY ESSENTIALS’, ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS BABY’ and ‘LUXURIOUS AYURVEDA’.

7. It is asserted by the appellant that the respondents were operating under the name ‘M/s Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited’, but have rebranded to ‘Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited’, sometime around December 2022 - January 2023, to mimic the appellant. It is asserted that the respondents have also maliciously obtained the registration on a ‘proposed to be used basis', in 2020 of the mark ‘BABY FOREST’ in trademark classes 28, 35, 21, 25, 3, and 5, against which the appellant has filed rectifications which are pending before this Court.

8. It is asserted that the respondents have also actively encouraged customer confusion on social media by not responding to customers asking if ‘BABY FOREST’ was part of ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS’. The appellant has also received queries from its own clients asking whether the respondents were associated with it. Further, the Google search engine, when ‘is baby f’ was typed, has also predicted the search query as ‘is bab