Delhi High Court Permits ‘BE NEUDE’ Rebranding, Modifies Injunction In NEUD Trademark Dispute
Delhi High Court Permits ‘BE NEUDE’ Rebranding, Modifies Injunction In NEUD Trademark Dispute
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has permitted cosmetics brand Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited to rebrand its products from “NEUDE” to “BE NEUDE,” holding that the modified mark sufficiently reduces the likelihood of confusion with rival brand Wet and Dry Personal Care Private Limited’s trademark “NEUD.” The Court modified an earlier interim injunction passed by the Commercial Court while balancing trademark rights with commercial realities.
Factual Background
Wet and Dry Personal Care Private Limited is engaged in the manufacture and sale of cosmetic and personal care products under the trademark “NEUD.” It claimed prior rights over the mark, asserting that it had applied for trademark registration in 2017, registered its domain name in 2016, and had generated substantial sales and goodwill under the brand.
Au Naturel Beauty Private Limited manufactures cosmetic products under the mark “NEUDE.” It disputed Wet and Dry’s claims of prior commercial use and contended that insufficient evidence was produced to establish actual market presence under the “NEUD” mark.
Procedural Background
Wet and Dry instituted a trademark infringement and passing-off suit before the Commercial Court at Tis Hazari. The Commercial Court restrained Au Naturel Beauty from using the mark “NEUDE,” holding it to be deceptively similar to “NEUD,” while permitting limited sale of existing stock.
Aggrieved, Au Naturel Beauty approached the Delhi High Court. During earlier proceedings, the High Court allowed continued sale of existing “NEUDE” products until December 15, 2025, subject to maintenance of accounts and deposit of ₹50 lakh with the Court. Attempts at mediation between the parties failed.
Issues
1. Whether adoption of the modified mark “BE NEUDE” would sufficiently distinguish Au Naturel Beauty’s products from Wet and Dry’s “NEUD” mark.
2. Whether continued use of “NEUDE” should be completely prohibited and, if so, from what date.
3. How to balance trademark protection with the commercial investments already made by Au Naturel Beauty.
Contentions of the Parties
Au Naturel Beauty submitted that it was willing to permanently discontinue the use of “NEUDE” and adopt “BE NEUDE” as a fresh mark. It sought reasonable time to transition its packaging, labels and promotional materials, highlighting the significant investments already made in branding and inventory.
Wet and Dry opposed the proposal, arguing that even the mark “BE NEUDE” could cause confusion, particularly if the words were written separately or stylised in a misleading manner.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court took note of the fact that Wet and Dry markets its products under multiple other brand names, including “EVERTEEN,” “MANSURE PRODUCTS,” and “NATURE SURE PRODUCTS.” It also considered the commercial hardship that would be caused to Au Naturel Beauty by an immediate and absolute prohibition.
The Court held that when used as a single, continuous expression, the mark “BE NEUDE” would be sufficiently distinct from “NEUD” in overall impression. It observed that the addition of the word “BE,” coupled with strict directions on uniform font, colour and size, would adequately mitigate the risk of consumer confusion.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that continued use of “NEUDE” could not be permitted indefinitely.
Decision
The Delhi High Court modified the interim injunction and directed that Au Naturel Beauty shall completely stop using the mark “NEUDE” after May 31, 2026. From June 1, 2026, the company may sell products only under the mark “BE NEUDE,” which must appear as a single, continuous expression in uniform font, colour and size.
No products bearing the “NEUDE” mark may be manufactured, sold or marketed after the cut-off date, including on online platforms. Directions regarding disposal of existing stock, filing of sales accounts and continuation of the ₹50 lakh deposit shall remain subject to the final outcome of the suit. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and would not prejudice the final adjudication pending before the Commercial Court.
In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advs. along with Ms. Petrushk Dasgupta, Mr. Mridul Yadav, Mr. Raghav Mittal, Mr Anand Singh Sengar, Mr. Amer Vaid, Mr. Varun Aggarwal, with Mr. Advay Jhunjhunwala, Director.
