Delhi High Court Restrains US Firm Spa De Soleil from Using “DERMATOUCH” Mark, Cites Prior Use and Likelihood of Confusion

Delhi High Court Restrains US Firm Spa De Soleil from Using “DERMATOUCH” Mark, Cites Prior Use and Likelihood of Confusion

Introduction

The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd, restraining US-based Spa De Soleil Inc from using the trademark “DERMATOUCH” or any deceptively similar mark. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case based on prior use, registration, goodwill, and reputation.

Factual Background

Cloud Wellness Pvt Ltd and its director claimed to be the prior adopters and registered proprietors of the “DERMATOUCH” trademark since April 1, 2017, in relation to cosmetic and skincare products. The plaintiffs asserted that they had built substantial goodwill in the mark, with significant market presence and annual turnover of approximately ₹95 crores, along with recognition as a trusted brand.

The dispute arose when Spa De Soleil Inc allegedly entered the Indian market and began using the identical mark “DERMATOUCH” for similar products, including through online platforms and a domain name resembling the plaintiff’s brand. The plaintiffs contended that such use was intended to ride upon their established reputation and would mislead consumers.

Procedural Background

The plaintiffs filed a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking injunctive relief against the defendant’s use of the impugned mark. The matter was considered at the stage of grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction based on pleadings and documentary evidence demonstrating prior use and reputation.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s use of “DERMATOUCH” constitutes trademark infringement and passing off.

2. Whether the plaintiff established prior use and goodwill sufficient for grant of interim injunction.

3. Likelihood of consumer confusion due to identical or deceptively similar marks.

Contentions of the Parties

The plaintiffs contended that they were the prior adopters and registered owners of the mark “DERMATOUCH” and that the defendant’s identical use for similar goods was calculated to deceive consumers and exploit their goodwill. They argued that the similarity in marks, overlapping product categories, and common trade channels would inevitably lead to confusion and cause irreparable harm.

The defendant’s position was not recorded at this stage as the matter was considered ex-parte.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that the marks used by both parties were identical and that minor differences such as use of uppercase or lowercase letters were inconsequential. It emphasised that in cases involving identical marks and similar goods, the likelihood of confusion among consumers of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is high.

The Court further noted that the plaintiffs had established prior adoption, valid registration, and substantial goodwill in the mark. Given the common trade channels and consumer base, the Court held that the defendant’s use of the mark was likely to mislead consumers into believing an association with the plaintiff.

Applying the settled principles governing interim injunctions, the Court held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in their favour, and that irreparable injury would be caused if relief was denied.

Decision

The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant, its agents, and affiliates from using the mark “DERMATOUCH” or any deceptively similar mark. The Court also directed removal of the impugned mark from all online platforms, including websites and social media. Summons were issued to the defendant, and the matter was listed for further hearing September 8, 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocate Harshit Tolia with Advocates Rahul Khandelwal, Abhijit Chakarvaty, Utkarsh Jindal, and Hanghvi Tolia.