1. Plaintiff intellectual property owner seeks an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from using a mark alleged to be deceptively similar to its registered trade mark, ACNESTAR. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 23669
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
Mankind Consumer Products Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Alaina Healthcare Private Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 280/2026 | I.A. 7346/2026 | I.A. 7347/2026 | I.A. 7348/2026 | I.A. 7349/2026 | I.A. 16922/2026 | I.A. 21183/2026
Important Points
The court held that 'ACNE SCAR' is phonetically deceptively similar to the registered mark 'ACNESTAR'. The use of a house mark or the presence of generic terms ('ACNE') does not excuse infringement when the overall structural and phonetic identity is nearly indistinguishable.
Subject
Intellectual Property Rights - Trade Mark Infringement
Act Referred
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: O.XXXIX R.1, O.XXXIX R.2
Trade Marks Act, 1999: S.28, S.29(2)(b), S.30(2)(a), S.31(1), S.35
Trade Marks Act, 1999: S.28, S.29(2)(b), S.30(2)(a), S.31(1), S.35
Headnote
(A) Trade Mark Infringement - Deceptive Similarity - Phonetic identity between 'ACNESTAR' and 'ACNE SCAR' constitutes infringement where the marks are nearly indistinguishable to a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. (Para 47)
(B) Descriptive Terms - Publici Juris - While a generic term like 'ACNE' cannot be appropriated, the composite mark 'ACNESTAR' is a coined word; imitation of the overall structure (ACNE-S-A-R) cannot be excused by the presence of a generic element. (Para 41, 42)
(C) Defense of Descriptive Use - Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of Trade Marks Act - Protection is available only where an expression is used in its descriptive sense and not as a trade mark or primary brand identifier. (Para 50, 51)
(D) House Marks - Sub-branding - The use of a house mark (e.g., HEXILAK) alongside a prominently displayed infringing mark does not negate infringement in an action for infringement. (Para 49) (E) Suppression of Facts - Materiality - Minor inaccuracies regarding the date of the opponent's use do not disentitle a party to discretionary relief unless the fact is material for the determination of the lis. (Para 32, 34)
Issues: Whether the use of the mark 'ACNE SCAR' by the defendants is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark 'ACNESTAR' and whether an interim injunction should be granted.
Result: Application allowed; interim injunction granted.
(B) Descriptive Terms - Publici Juris - While a generic term like 'ACNE' cannot be appropriated, the composite mark 'ACNESTAR' is a coined word; imitation of the overall structure (ACNE-S-A-R) cannot be excused by the presence of a generic element. (Para 41, 42)
(C) Defense of Descriptive Use - Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of Trade Marks Act - Protection is available only where an expression is used in its descriptive sense and not as a trade mark or primary brand identifier. (Para 50, 51)
(D) House Marks - Sub-branding - The use of a house mark (e.g., HEXILAK) alongside a prominently displayed infringing mark does not negate infringement in an action for infringement. (Para 49) (E) Suppression of Facts - Materiality - Minor inaccuracies regarding the date of the opponent's use do not disentitle a party to discretionary relief unless the fact is material for the determination of the lis. (Para 32, 34)
Issues: Whether the use of the mark 'ACNE SCAR' by the defendants is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark 'ACNESTAR' and whether an interim injunction should be granted.
Result: Application allowed; interim injunction granted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akhil Sibal, Ankur, Prateush, Ankit, Saumya, Swastik, Sugandha
For the Respondents: Sandeep Sethi, Manish K. Jha, Ananya Kumar, Utkarsh Khandelwal, Ishan Gaur, Vaibhav Khanna, Shreya Sethi, Krisna Gambhir, Ritwik Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akhil Sibal, Ankur, Prateush, Ankit, Saumya, Swastik, Sugandha
For the Respondents: Sandeep Sethi, Manish K. Jha, Ananya Kumar, Utkarsh Khandelwal, Ishan Gaur, Vaibhav Khanna, Shreya Sethi, Krisna Gambhir, Ritwik Sharma
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiff contends infringement based on phonetic similarity and prior registration; defendant asserts descriptive use, lack of confusion, and material suppression of facts by the plaintiff. (Para 8 , 14 , 19 , 23 , 26 )
3. The court found the mark ACNESTAR is inherently distinctive and not descriptive, and that the impugned mark is phonetically and structurally nearly identical, causing potential consumer confusion. (Para 37 , 41 , 47 , 51 , 56 )
4. Registered trademarks are entitled to protection where essential features are adopted, and descriptive word defences are unavailable when such terms are used as independent trade identifiers. (Para 45 , 49 , 50 , 51 )
5. The court granted the interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the impugned marks and providing a two-month period for stock recall. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 )
6. Does the inclusion of a house mark alongside an infringing mark provide a valid defence against a claim of trademark infringement?
No, the use of a house mark does not negate infringement when the essential, distinctive features of a registered mark have been adopted, as this amounts to prohibited sub-branding. (Para 10 , 49 )
7. Can a party claim a defence under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act for using descriptive words that are parts of a competitor's registered trademark?
No, the descriptive defence is restricted to bona fide, non-trademark use. If such terms are used to identify the product or create a brand identity, they are not protected. (Para 50 , 51 , 53 )
8. Is material suppression of facts a sufficient ground for a court to deny discretionary relief in an infringement suit?
Yes, but only if the suppression relates to facts material to the determination of the legal issues in the suit; minor inaccuracies that do not change the core outcome do not disqualify. (Para 31 , 32 , 34 )
9. Does a delay in filing a suit for trademark infringement bar the grant of an interim injunction?
Mere delay does not automatically defeat a claim for an interim injunction in infringement cases, especially where the adoption of the mark prima facie appears to be dishonest. (Para 15 , 57 )
JUDGMENT
I.A. 7346/2026 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC)
1. The instant application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark ACNE SCAR / ACNE+SCAR / ACNESCAR (“impugned mark”), which, according to the plaintiff, is deceptively similar to its registered trade mark ACNESTAR.
2. Defendant no. 1, Alaina Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., is the manufacturer, and defendant no. 2, A. Menarini India Pvt. Ltd., is the marketer, of the product sold under the impugned mark. Reply to the application and written submissions have been filed on behalf of defendant no. 2.
3. The case set up in the plaint, in brief, is that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the word mark ACNESTAR, registered under No. 1352577 in Class 5 with effect from 25.04.2005, in respect of “pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations included in Class 5”. The mark was originally registered in the name of Lifestar Pharma Pvt. Ltd., which was later amalgamated with Mankind Pharma Ltd. Mankind Pharma Ltd. assigned the mark to the plaintiff by a Deed of Assignment dated 19.02.2025, deemed effective from 03.09.2024. The plaintiff filed Form TM-P on 22.08.2025 for recording the assignment.
4. The mark ACNESTAR is stated to have been in continuous use since 2005, for a clindamycin and nicotinamide gel, and also for soaps and face washes. As per the certificate of the auditor, the sales under the mark since inception are about ₹ 540 crores, and the sales for FY 2024-25 were ₹ 76.39 crores.
5. The defendants manufacture and market a serum for acne scars under the name HEXILAK ACNE + SCAR. The product is manufactured at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, under a cosmetics manufacturing licence. The mark HEXILAK stands registered under No. 1270019 in Class 5 in the name of A. Menarini Asia-Pacific Holdings Pte. Ltd., and defendant no. 2 is a part of the said group.
6. As per the plaint, the plaintiff came to know about the impugned product on 17.02.2026, and on enquiry learnt that the defendants had begun marketing it in May 2025. The suit was instituted on 11.03.2026. Vide order dated 20.03.2026, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and appointed Local Commissioners.
7. The said order was assailed by defendant no. 2 in FAO (OS) (COMM) 107/2026. Vide order dated 24.04.2026, the Division Bench recorded the statement of learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that the plaintiff had no objection to the order dated 20.03.2026 being kept in abeyance till this Court decides the application afresh, after considering the reply of the defendants. The present application has, accordingly, been heard afresh.
Submissions on behalf of the plaintiff
8. Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff, submits that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark ACNESTAR in Class 5 since 2005, and that the mark has been in continuous and uninterrupted use since then. It is submitted that a Division Bench of this Court has already recognised the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff’s predecessor in the mark ACNESTAR, and has injuncted a third party from using the mark ACNESCAR, in Mankind Pharma Ltd. v. Brinton Pharmaceuticals Ltd. , FAO (COMM) 166/2024, decided on 22.09.2025 (“Brinton”). Reliance is placed on paras 41.1, 41.3 and 41.4 of the said decision, wherein it has been held that ACNESCAR is phonetically nearly identical to ACNESTAR, that the plea of ACNESCAR being a portmanteau of ACNE and SCAR cannot save it from injunction, and that ACNESTAR cannot be regarded as descriptive.
9. He submits that ACNESTAR is a coined word, formed by combining a prefix with a distinctive suffix, and that such a combination is distinctive. The mark is to be compared as a whole. Reliance is placed on Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.
