Delhi High Court Blocks ‘Lotus Salon’, Cites Triple Identity And Protects Lotus Herbals’ Well-Known Trademark

Delhi High Court Blocks ‘Lotus Salon’, Cites Triple Identity And Protects Lotus Herbals’ Well-Known Trademark

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has restrained a beauty salon from using the mark “Lotus Salon” or any other name deceptively similar to the well-known trademark “Lotus,” owned by Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd. The court found that the salon’s use of the mark constituted prima facie infringement and passing off, given the identical name, service category, and target consumers.

Factual Background

Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd., founded in 1993, is a leading Indian brand in personal care, cosmetics, and beauty services. The company operates under trademarks including “Lotus Herbals Professional,” “Lotus Salon De Beaute,” “Lotus Beauty Parlour,” and “Lotus Spa.” The mark “LOTUS” was declared a well-known trademark by the Registrar of Trademarks in April 2025, granting it broader legal protection against misuse.

In July 2025, a salon operating under the name Lotus Beauty Salon began offering beauty and grooming services through its website, lotusunisexsalon.com. Upon discovering this, Lotus Herbals issued a cease-and-desist notice, but the salon continued using the mark and even filed trademark applications for “Lotus Salon.”

Procedural Background

Aggrieved by the continued misuse, Lotus Herbals filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the impugned mark and to prevent passing off, damages, and delivery of infringing materials. The matter came up before Justice Tejas Karia, who heard the application for interim relief on November 3, 2025.

Issues

1.  Whether the defendant’s use of the mark “Lotus Salon” amounts to prima facie trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
2.  Whether the case satisfies the test of passing off due to deceptive similarity and identical service category.
3.  Whether an interim injunction was warranted pending final adjudication.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff (Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd.): The plaintiff argued that its “LOTUS” trademark enjoys a well-known status, recognized officially by the Trademark Registry. It submitted that the defendant’s mark was identical in name and category, constituting a case of “triple identity” — identical mark, identical services, and identical consumer base. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s adoption of the mark was dishonest and calculated to ride on Lotus Herbals’ goodwill, causing confusion among consumers.

Defendant (Lotus Beauty Salon Pvt. Ltd.): The defendant argued that the word “Lotus” is common in the trade and has a descriptive or generic association with beauty and wellness. It further claimed that its usage was independent and honest, without intent to mislead or exploit the reputation of Lotus Herbals. The defendant asserted that no actual confusion had been demonstrated.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. It noted that both entities operated in the same field salon and beauty services—under an identical or confusingly similar mark. Justice Karia emphasized that the matter fell under the doctrine of “triple identity,” where the mark, product/service, and consumer base were the same. Such a scenario, the Court observed, is sufficient to presume the likelihood of confusion.

The Court also rejected the defendant’s argument of “common word usage,” holding that once a mark is recognized as well-known, it enjoys wider protection, even beyond its specific product category. The judge observed, “This is a case of triple identity where the mark is identical, the product category is identical, and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical. The Plaintiff, being the prior user, adopter, and registered owner of the Plaintiff’s Marks, is entitled to protection.”

Accordingly, the Court found that the defendant’s continued use of the mark was prima facie dishonest and aimed at unfairly exploiting the established reputation of Lotus Herbals.

Implications

The judgment underscores the expanding protection afforded to well-known trademarks in India and reiterates the judiciary’s intolerance toward deceptive commercial practices. Moreover, by recognizing the “triple identity” principle, the ruling reinforces that even identical services under the same consumer segment invite immediate injunctive relief. The decision also signals a broader judicial trend of safeguarding brand equity against opportunistic encroachments, especially in the beauty, fashion, and wellness sectors where brand identity directly drives consumer trust.

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