Delhi High Court Cracks Down on Look-Alike Facial Kits, Shields O3+ Trade Dress and ‘DERMOMELAN’ Mark

Delhi High Court Cracks Down on Look-Alike Facial Kits, Shields O3+ Trade Dress and ‘DERMOMELAN’ Mark

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to Visage Beauty & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., restraining a rival cosmetic manufacturer from imitating the packaging, written content and trademark associated with Visage’s well-known O3+ facial kits. The Court found a strong prima facie case of both trademark and copyright infringement.

Factual Background

Visage Beauty is engaged in the manufacture and sale of professional cosmetic and skincare products, including its widely marketed O3+ facial kits. The company claims ownership of registered trademarks such as D-TAN, DERMOMELAN, and SHINE & GLOW, and asserted that it has built substantial goodwill through long-standing use, nationwide sales and extensive promotional activities.

The dispute arose when Visage discovered that Freecia Professional India Pvt. Ltd. was marketing facial kits under the brand “Proads” with packaging that closely resembled Visage’s O3+ kits. According to Visage, the rival products reproduced not only the overall layout and trade dress but also the exact wording of ingredients lists and step-by-step usage instructions.

Procedural Background

Visage instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court alleging trademark infringement, copyright infringement and passing off. During the proceedings, Freecia initially filed a written response but subsequently stopped appearing, leading the Court to proceed ex parte against it. The matter came up before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora for consideration of Visage’s application for interim injunction.

Issues

1. Whether Freecia had copied the packaging layout, ingredient descriptions and usage instructions of Visage’s O3+ facial kits, amounting to copyright infringement.

2. Whether Freecia’s use of the mark “DERMOMELAN” infringed Visage’s registered trademark rights.

3. Whether Visage had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable harm warranting interim relief.

Contentions of the Parties

Visage argued that Freecia’s products were a clear case of slavish imitation. It relied on side-by-side comparisons to demonstrate near-identical wording of ingredients and “steps to use,” along with a substantially similar packaging layout. Visage contended that these elements constituted original literary and artistic works protected under copyright law, and that the unauthorised use of its registered mark “DERMOMELAN” further aggravated the infringement.

Freecia, in its initial defence, claimed that expressions such as D-TAN and phrases describing glow or shine were generic and commonly used in the cosmetics industry. It also argued that listing ingredients and usage steps was standard commercial practice and lacked originality. According to Freecia, the prominent display of its own brand “PROADS” was sufficient to avoid consumer confusion.

Reasoning and Analysis

After examining the competing products, the Court found that the similarities went far beyond generic industry practices. It noted that the wording of the ingredients lists and the step-by-step usage instructions appeared to be substantially identical, and that Freecia had failed to place any credible material on record to show that such wording was commonplace or dictated by industry standards.

The Court further observed that Freecia’s use of the term “DERMOMELAN” within its product instructions was particularly telling. Since Visage was the registered proprietor of the mark, the Court held that Freecia’s adoption of the term could not be justified by pointing to alleged third-party or foreign usage. Instead, it reinforced the conclusion that the packaging had been slavishly copied.

On balance of convenience, the Court held that continued sale of the infringing products would cause irreparable harm to Visage’s goodwill and brand reputation, whereas restraining Freecia would not cause comparable prejudice.

Decision

The Delhi High Court concluded that Visage had established a strong prima facie case of trademark and copyright infringement. Accordingly, it granted an interim injunction restraining Freecia Professional India Pvt. Ltd. and its associates from copying Visage’s packaging layout, ingredient descriptions or usage instructions, and from using the trademark “DERMOMELAN” in any manner whatsoever, pending final disposal of the suit.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Ms. Aamna Hasan and Ms. Aarya Deshmukh, Advocates.