A Shop Too Far, Bombay High Court Curbs Copycat Use of ‘The Body Care’ Brand

A Shop Too Far, Bombay High Court Curbs Copycat Use of ‘The Body Care’ Brand

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has temporarily restrained a Mumbai-based retail outlet from using the name “The Body Care Shop”, holding that it infringes the registered trademark “The Body Care.” The Court reaffirmed that the mere addition of a descriptive word does not negate deceptive similarity when the essential features of a registered mark are copied.

Factual Background

The plaintiff, proprietor of the long-established cosmetics brand “The Body Care,” has been engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of cosmetics, skincare and haircare products for over four decades. The mark was first used in 1987, registered in 1994, and further strengthened by an unconditional device mark registration obtained in 2009. Over the years, the brand has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market.

In October 2025, the plaintiff discovered that a retail outlet in Goregaon, Mumbai was operating under the name “The Body Care Shop.” The defendant had also applied to register this mark in May 2025, claiming use since June 2021.

Procedural Background

Aggrieved by the alleged infringement and passing off, the plaintiff instituted proceedings before the Bombay High Court seeking ad-interim relief. The matter was heard by a single-judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh, who considered the plea for temporary restraint.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s use of “The Body Care Shop” was deceptively similar to the registered mark “The Body Care.”

2. Whether the addition of the word “Shop” was sufficient to distinguish the impugned mark.

3. Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case warranting ad-interim relief.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiff contended that the defendant had copied the essential and dominant features of the registered trademark and that the addition of the descriptive term “Shop” did not create any meaningful distinction. It was argued that such use was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with the plaintiff’s well-known brand.

The defendant relied on its claim of use since 2021 and the pending trademark application, asserting that its retail activity was independent and distinguishable.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted that registration certificates confer a prima facie right in favour of the proprietor. Even assuming that the earliest registration with a disclaimer was ignored, the 2009 device mark registration was unconditional and granted exclusive rights to the plaintiff.

On comparing the rival marks, the Court found that the defendant had substantially replicated the plaintiff’s mark and merely appended the word “Shop.” Such an addition, the Court held, was insufficient to dispel confusion or avoid infringement. The visual and phonetic similarity between the two marks, coupled with the identical nature of goods and services, heightened the likelihood of deception. The Court also took note of the plaintiff’s much earlier and continuous use of the mark since 1987, contrasted with the defendant’s claimed use only from 2021, which weighed heavily against the defendant at the interim stage.

Decision

Finding a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim relief restraining the defendant and all persons acting on its behalf from using the name “The Body Care Shop” or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to cosmetic products or retail services. The restraint will continue until the next date of hearing, when the matter is listed for further consideration.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Vinod Bhagat a/w. Ms Apeksa Mehta, Ms Rashi Thakur, Ms Sonam Pradhan and Ms Twisha Singh i/by Mr Vinod Bhagat.