CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 1 of 25

$~42

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Decision: 21.11.2025

+ CS(COMM) 633/2022 & I.A. 15016/2022 I.A. 383/2023

VISAGE BEAUTY AND HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED

.... Plaintiff

Through: Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, Ms. Aamna

Hasan and Ms. Aarya Deshmukh,

Advocates

versus

FREECIA PROFESSIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

......Defendants

Through: None

%

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA , J (ORAL):

I.A. 15016/2022(under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2)

1. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule

1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) seeking for interim

injunction against the Defendants.

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit with respect to infringement of

its trademarks and copyright in its three (3) products, which are as follows:

a. O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Radiant & Glowing Skin.

b. O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Glowing Skin.

c. O3+ Shine & Glow Kit.

3. The Defendant No. 1 is engaged in selling various skin care and

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 2 of 25

cosmetic products under its house mark ‘PROADS’. The subject matter of

the suit are its products known as ‘Proads Bridal Facial Kit Radiant Smooth

Glowing Skin’, ‘Proads Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Enriched Glowing

Skin’ and ‘Proads Facial Kit Shine & Glowing Skin’ [‘impugned products’].

4. The Plaintiff’s grievance stems from the fact that the Defendant No. 1

has verbatim copied the original literary work with respect to the contents of

‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ mentioned on the Plaintiff’s products on its

own impugned products and in the process, the Plaintiff’s trademarks ‘D-

TAN’[Plaintiff’s Product (a) as above], ‘SHINE & GLOW’ and

‘DERMOMELAN [Plaintiff’s Product (c) as above]’ has also been

infringed.

5. The Defendant No. 1 was duly served and had entered appearance as

well as filed its written statement as a reply to this application. However,

there has been no appearance on behalf of Defendant no. 1 after 04.12.2024

and the Defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated

21.08.2025.

6. The Plaintiff has filed an affidavit on 28.10.2025 stating that

Defendant no. 1 continues to sell the infringing products as available on the

Defendant no. 1’s official website www.proadsindia.com and relies upon the

purchases made on 17.09.2025 with respect to the following products:

a. Proads Professional Bridal Facial Kit Radiant Smooth

Glowing Skin; and

b. Proads Professional Shine & Glowing Skin Facial Kit.

7. Mr. Vaibhav Vutts, learned counsel for the Plaintiff sets up the

Plaintiff’s case as under:

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 3 of 25

7.1. The Plaintiff adopted the trademarks DERMOMELAN in 2008 and

got it registered under Registration No. 1913811 (Class 3), D-TAN in 2009

bearing Registration No. 2065580 (Class 3), and SHINE & GLOW in 2011

bearing Registration No. 2219460 (Class 44). The details of the trademark

registrations and applications are mentioned at paragraph 16 of the amended

plaint.

7.2. The Plaintiff has recorded substantial sales under its trademarks, with

D-TAN recording over Rs. 18 crores in 2020-21, ‘DERMAMELON’

recording over Rs. 1 crore in 2021-2022 and ‘SHINE & GLOW’ recording

over Rs. 9 crores in 2021-2022. The detail of the Plaintiff’s sales for its

products under the mark ‘D-TAN’, ‘SHINE & GLOW’ AND

‘DERMOMELON’ is mentioned at paragraph 20 of the amended plaint.

7.3. The Plaintiff has expended substantial amounts towards the promotion

of its trademarks, incurring advertisement expenses exceeding Rs. 21 crores

during the period 2004-2021. The details of the advertisement expenses are

mentioned at paragraph 22 of the amended plaint.

7.4. The Plaintiff’s trademarks have been extensively promoted,

advertised and find prominent mention in the marketplace including:

i. Magazines like Femina, Cosmopolitan, Salon International

ii. Products under the Plaintiff’s trademarks are available on third

party e-commerce platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, etc.

iii. Plaintiff’s social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and

twitter.

iv. Search Engine results also prominently display the Plaintiff’s

products under the Plaintiff’s trademarks.

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 4 of 25

7.5. The Plaintiff’s trademarks ‘SHINE & GLOW’, ‘D-TAN’ and

‘DERMOMELAN’ are coined, catchy and fanciful marks and the marks ‘D-

TAN’ and ‘DERMOMELAN’ find no mention in the dictionary. Owing to

their extensive sales and advertisement expenses, the Plaintiff’s trademarks

‘D-TAN’, ‘DERMOMELAN ’ and ‘SHINE & GLOW’, have acquired

substantial goodwill and reputation in the market.

Infringement and passing off by the Defendants

8. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant no. 1’s infringing

activities in and around August, 2022. From the comparison of products

attached as Plaintiff’s Document Vol. 5, Index no. 27, it is clear that there is

infringement of trademark, passing off and copyright of the Plaintiff’s

products as:

i. Defendant No. 1 has adopted Plaintiff’s three (3) trademarks ‘D-

TAN’, ‘DERMOMELON’ and ‘SHINE & GLOW’ for its

impugned products.

ii. Defendant No. 1 has verbatim copied the ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps

to use’ on its product(s) from the corresponding product of the

Plaintiff.

iii. The goods offered under the impugned marks are identical to the

Plaintiff’s trademarks.

iv. The relevant segment of the consuming public as well as the

trade channels, is the same

v. Defendant No.1’s products are cheaper i.e. Rs. 300-600 whereas

Plaintiff’s products are worth Rs. 1,000/- upwards.

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 5 of 25

8.1. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Defendant No. 1 has

adopted three (3) trademarks, not merely one, evidencing clear dishonest

intention of the Defendant No. 1.

8.2. He states that the unique manner of representation of the Plaintiff’s

trademarks ‘SHINE & GLOW’, ‘D-TAN’ and ‘DERMOMELAN’ on its

products are original works under the Copyright Act, 1957.

8.3. The Plaintiff has over a period of time developed and created a unique

manner of representation including artistic work, packaging, content etc. for

its Kits which, as in the present case, also includes the lists of ‘ingredients’

and ‘steps to use’ encrypted on the Plaintiff’s products. These have been

created under the supervision of the Plaintiff and exclusively for them and

all rights in the original work vests with the Plaintiff.

8.4. He states that there is no justification for the Defendant No. 1 to adopt

and use the Plaintiff’s trademarks and the literary work pertaining to the

ingredients and step to use except to ride on the reputation and goodwill of

the Plaintiff.

8.5. He states that Defendant No. 1 in its written statement has alleged that

the three (3) trademarks ‘SHINE & GLOW’, ‘D -TAN’ and

‘DERMOMELAN’ are common to trade and used by several third parties.

8.6. He states that mere claim of third-party use of the Plaintiff’s

trademarks is insufficient to justify infringement by Defendant No. 1. The

Defendant No. 1 must establish (i) substantial use by such third parties, (ii)

the extent of their trade, and (iii) that such use impacts the distinctiveness of

the Plaintiff’s marks.

8.7. He states, however, Defendant No. 1 has failed to produce any

evidence demonstrating the extent of such third-party use, the area of

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 6 of 25

operation, period of operation, extent of sales or any other supporting

documents such as sales invoices or records.

8.8. He states that the infringing actions of the Defendant No. 1 cannot be

justified or condoned by the existence of similar infringements by unrelated

third-parties. The Plaintiff is not expected to go after every third-party

infringer, whose use may be inconsequential for the plaintiff’s business.

8.9. He states that the Plaintiff in fact, has issued legal notices to various

third-parties including those cited by the Defendant No. 1 in its written

statements and has also been successful in various civil actions and

oppositions. The detailed list of actions taken by the Plaintiff against the

third-party infringers and undertakings are mentioned at paragraph 28 and

29, respectively, of the amended plaint.

8.10. He states that when the Plaintiff commenced the use of the trademarks

‘DERMOMELAN’ and ‘D-TAN’ in the year 2008 and 2009, for over a

decade, no third party had used the same. The Plaintiff began noticing

increased unauthorized use of its trademarks only during and after the

COVID-19 pandemic, owing to the mark’s established success and

popularity at that point in time.

8.11. He states that the unauthorized adoption and use of the trademarks

and the slavish imitation of the “Ingredients” and “Steps to use” on the

Plaintiff’s product by the Defendant No. 1 amounts to infringement of

Plaintiff’s trademarks, copyright and passing off. In the event the

Defendants are not injuncted, the Plaintiff is likely to suffer severe losses.

8.12. He states that in view of the abovementioned facts and submissions,

the Plaintiff prays for grant of an injunction.

9. The principal contention raised by the Defendant no. 1 in its written

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 7 of 25

statement are as follows:

9.1. It is stated that ‘SHINE & GLOW’, ‘DERMOMELAN ’, and ‘D-

TAN’ are laudatory and descriptive, denying the Plaintiff any exclusive

rights therein, and that Defendant No.1’s use is merely descriptive and

protected under Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

9.2. It is stated that the Plaintiff’s trademarks are common to the trade,

with various third-parties using the same and consequently, the Plaintiff

cannot claim exclusive rights therein.

9.3. It is stated that the overall get-up, colour scheme, layout, and

presentation of the Defendant No. 1’s goods are distinct and dissimilar from

those of the Plaintiff’s products.

9.4. It is stated that the “ingredients and steps to use” as mentioned on the

Defendant No. 1’s product are as per standard industry practice and there

has been no infringement of copyright, as alleged.

Findings and analysis

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and perused

the record.

11. As noted above, the Defendant No. 1 has been proceeded ex-parte

vide order dated 21.08.2025. Thereafter, the matter was listed for further

arguments on 03.11.2025, 13.11.2025 and there has been no appearance on

behalf of Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff has pressed this application only

vis-à-vis Defendant No. 1.

D-TAN

12. The Plaintiff has placed on record documents evidencing its

trademark/wordmark registration for the mark ‘D-TAN’ in Class 3 under

Registration No. 2065580 effective on 09.12.2010. The Plaintiff has averred

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 8 of 25

that it had adopted the trademark D-TAN in 2009 and has recorded

substantial sales and advertisement expenses of its product.

13. The Plaintiff has contended that the mark ‘D-TAN’ is a coined, catchy

and fanciful mark which does not find any mention in the dictionary.

DERMOMELAN

14. With respect to its trademark/wordmark ‘DERMOMELAN’, the

Plaintiff has contended that it adopted this mark in year 2008 and has a

trademark/wordmark registration bearing no. 1913811 for Class 3 since

01.04.2009 and has provided substantial sales and advertisement expenses of

this product.

15. The Plaintiff has contended that the mark ‘DERMOMELAN’ is a

coined, catchy and fanciful mark which does not find any mention in the

dictionary.

SHINE & GLOW

16. Similarly, with respect to its trademark ‘SHINE & GLOW’, the

Plaintiff contends that the said mark was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year

2011 and it obtained registration for the said trademark/wordmark in Class

44 under Registration No. 2219460 with effect from 13.10.2011. The

product sold under ‘SHINE & GLOW’ has achieved substantial sales over

the period of time.

17. The Defendant No. 1’s products by which the Plaintiff is aggrieved

of, in the present suit, are as follows:

(i) Proads Professional Bridal Facial Kit Radiant Smooth Glowing

Skin.

(ii) Proads Professional Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Enriched

Glowing Skin.

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 9 of 25

(iii) Proads Professional Facial Kit Shine & Glowing Skin.

18. With respect to the product at serial no. (i) as above, the Plaintiff has

provided a pictorial comparison of the products which is as under:

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 10 of 25

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 11 of 25

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 12 of 25

18.1. The Plaintiff in its affidavit dated 28.10.2025 has stated that this

infringing product of Defendant No. 1 is still available in the market.

18.2. It is contended that the Defendant No. 1, in their products, have

verbatim copied the manner of description of the Plaintiff’s products,

including 'Ingredients & Steps to use" which is displayed on the Plaintiff’s

product ‘O3+ Bridal Facial Kit for Radiant and Glowing Skin’ and has

displayed the same on its product "Proads Professional Bridal Facial Kit

Radiant Smooth Glowing Skin” packaging. At step 2, the trademark D-TAN

has been adopted by the Defendant No. 1 as a consequence of the literal

copying of the ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’. In addition, it is stated that

the layout such as placement of the name of the product on the packaging

and its representation have been copied by the Defendant No. 1.

18.3. Upon perusal of the abovementioned comparison chart, the Plaintiff’s

submission that Defendant No. 1 has substantially copied the description of

the ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ of the Plaintiff’s product is duly borne

out. The ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps’ for both the products are substantially

identical. So also, the Plaintiff’s contention with respect to layout of the

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 13 of 25

front portion of the packaging with respect to the manner in which the name

of the product is placed is similar.

18.4. The Defendant No. 1 in its written statement at paragraph 38, while

responding to the allegations made in the plaint, has stated that the

“ingredients and steps to use” as mentioned on its product are as per

standard industry practice and there has been no infringement of copyright,

as alleged.

18.5. The Defendant No. 1 has filed pictures of about four (4) third-party

products in its written statement to aver and substantiate that the ‘steps to

use’ are as per standard industry practice. However, on a perusal of the

images as pasted in the written statement, this Court finds that the said

assertion in the written statement is not substantiated. Upon a bare perusal of

the pictures, nothing can be made out as the visibility of the ingredients and

steps to use on the third-party products is not vivid or clear enough to

substantiate the plea. In the documents filed, no clearer images of these

third-party products have been filed.

18.6. It has also been contended by Defendant No. 1 that the use of word

‘D-TAN’ in the ‘steps to use’ on the Defendant’s product does not amount

to infringement of the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘D-TAN’, as this word is generic

which merely describes the nature and purpose of the product i.e., to remove

the tan.

18.7. It is a matter of record that rectification petition has been filed against

the trademark/wordmark ‘D-TAN’. The written statement enlists several

third-party brands including reputed brands which use the mark ‘De-TAN’

for products which are used for removal of tan. In the considered opinion of

this Court, the issue whether ‘D-TAN’ is a descriptive and generic word

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 14 of 25

would require further consideration; therefore, this Court is not deliberating

on the infringement of the word ‘D-TAN’ and nothing stated here is an

expression of opinion.

18.8. However, having perused the comparison of the ‘ingredients’ and

‘steps to use’ as well as the layout between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.

1’s product, this Court is satisfied that prima facie Defendant No. 1 has

substantially copied the same from the Plaintiff’s product. The submissions

of the Defendant No. 1 that the ‘steps to use’ and ‘ingredients’ are as per

industry practice has not been substantiated.

18.9. Accordingly, Defendant No. 1 is restrained from the layout, ‘steps to

use’ and ‘ingredients’ for this impugned product which is prima facie an

infringing copy of the Plaintiff’s corresponding product.

19. The Plaintiff has referred to product of the Defendant No. 1 as

mentioned above at serial no. (ii) and provided the product-by-product

comparison which is as under:

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 15 of 25

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 16 of 25

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 17 of 25

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 18 of 25

20.1 A perusal of the aforesaid comparison also substantiates the Plaintiff’s

case that Defendant No. 1 has copied the representation of the ‘ingredients’

and ‘step to use’ of the Plaintiff’s product to its impugned product.

Similarly, the placement of the name of the product on the front part of the

packaging has been copied and is deceptively similar.

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 19 of 25

20.2 It is prima facie apparent that Defendant No. 1 has substantially

copied the layout of the packaging, ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ provided

on the Plaintiff’s product and have therefore infringed upon Plaintiff’s

copyright.

20.3 With respect to this product, the Defendant No. 1 in its written

statement has similarly stated that the manner of description of ‘ingredients’

and ‘steps to use’ mentioned on this product by the Defendant No. 1 is a

standard industry practice followed by the other entities in respect of

cosmetic products and has denied infringement of copyright of the

Plaintiff’s product.

20.4 The Defendant No. 1 has filed two (2) pictures of third-party products

in its written statement to aver that the ‘steps to use’ are standard industry

practice however on a perusal of the images as pasted in the written

statement, this Court finds that the said assertion in the written statement is

not substantiated. Upon a bare perusal of the pictures, nothing can be made

out as the visibility of the ingredients and steps to use is not clear enough to

substantiate. There are no separate documents filed with the written

statement of the third-party products.

20.5 The Plaintiff in its affidavit dated 28.10.2025 has remained silent

whether this infringing product of Defendant No. 1 is available in the market

and learned counsel for the Plaintiff contends that its representative could

not find the same.

20.6 Nevertheless, in view of the substantial similarity in the layout, in the

description ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ on the infringing product, which

the Defendant No. 1 has failed to justify, the Defendant No. 1 is restrained

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 20 of 25

from using the layout, ‘ingredients’ ‘steps to use’ for this product which is

prima facie an infringing copy of the Plaintiff’s corresponding product.

21. With respect to Defendant No. 1’s product as mentioned above at

serial no. (iii), the Plaintiff has provided the product-by-product comparison

which is as under:

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 21 of 25

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 22 of 25

22. The Plaintiff in its affidavit dated 28.10.2025 has stated that this

infringing product of Defendant No. 1 is still available in the market.

22.1. Upon a comparison of these products, it is apparent that the

‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ as provided on the Plaintiff’s product has

been substantially copied by the Defendant No. 1.

22.2. With respect to this product the Defendant No. 1 has similarly

submitted that the ‘steps to use’ mentioned in its product is a standard

industry practice followed by other players and the word ‘DERMOMELAN’

is merely a laudatory word and has sought to contend that the word

‘DERMOMELAN’ is a product descriptor.

22.3. Defendant No. 1 has filed two (2) pictures of third -party products in

its written statement to aver that the ‘steps to use’ are standard industry

practice however on a perusal of the images as annexed in the written

statement, this Court finds that the said assertion in the written statement is

not substantiated with the samples provided. Upon a bare perusal of the said

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 23 of 25

pictures pasted in the written statement, nothing can be made out as the

‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ is not vivid or clear enough to substantiate.

No documents have been filed with the written statement with respect to the

said third-party products and therefore this plea has not been substantiated.

DERMOMELAN

23. With respect to the trademark ‘DERMOMELAN’, Defendant No. 1

has placed on record a single instance of a third-party manufacturer using

the said mark for its product. The Defendant No. 1 has averred that the said

mark is also a product descriptor and has referred to a product Dermamelan

treatment cream by a brand named Mesoestetic. This is the solitary instance

given by the Defendant No. 1 for this product in its written statement.

23.1. The Plaintiff in its replication has not disputed the use of mark

‘DERMAMELAN’ in the third-party product Dermamelan treatment cream

by the brand Mesoestetic.

23.2. A cursory search of the internet shows that the third-party product

‘DERMAMELAN’ is a foreign product and it is unclear that whether this

product is sold by the third-party in India. In the considered opinion of this

Court, the single instance of another foreign brand named Mesoestetic using

the mark ‘DERMAMELAN’ for its treatment cream would not justify the

Defendant No. 1’s adoption of the Plaintiff’s registered mark

‘DERMOMELAN’. There is no evidence to substantiate the Defendant’s

plea that this word is common to trade or a mere product descriptor.

23.3. The Defendant No. 1’s action of using the mark ‘DERMOMELAN’

in the ingredients, in fact, it appears to the Court as evidence that the

Defendant No. 1 while slavishly copying the Plaintiff’s packaging has

included this word in its ‘steps to use’. The Plaintiff is the registered

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 24 of 25

proprietor of the mark ‘DERMOMELAN’. Therefore, Defendant No. 1 is

refrained from using this mark in any manner whatsoever.

SHINE & GLOW

24. The Plaintiff has also sought an injunction against the Defendant No.

1 from the use of the word ‘SHINE & GLOW’ for which it holds TM

registration no. 2219460. The injunction sought is against the use of the

word ‘SHINE & GLOW’ by the Defendant No. 1 in its product ‘PROADS

SHINE & GLOWING SKIN FACIAL KIT’.

24.1. This Court however is of the opinion that Defendant No. 1’s mark

‘PROADS SHINE & GLOWING SKIN FACIAL KIT’ is

distinct from the Plaintiff’s mark ‘SHINE & GLOW’. The use of the words

‘SHINE & GLOWING’ in Defendant No. 1’s product name by itself is

descriptive in nature and does not infringe upon the Plaintiff’s trademark

‘SHINE & GLOW’.

25. However, in view of the observations made hereinabove, this Court is

prima facie of the opinion that Defendant No. 1 has substantially copied the

‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ printed on the Plaintiff’s corresponding

product and has therefore infringed upon the copyright of the Plaintiff in its

literary work and therefore the Defendant No. 1 is restrained from using the

literary work on the Plaintiff’s corresponding product.

CS(COMM) 633/2022 Page 25 of 25

26. To conclude, in view the above findings, the prayer for grant of

interim injunction is hereby granted in favour of Plaintiff and against the

Defendant No. 1 its partners, servants, agents, their assigns, or any other

persons/entities that are related or affiliated to the Defendant No. 1,

individually or collectively, as the case may be, and all others, acting for and

on behalf of the Defendant No. 1 are restrained from:

(a) copying, reproducing, adopting and/or using the Plaintiff’s manner of

layout on its packaging, description of the ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ in

the products ‘O3+ SHINE & GLOW FACIA L KIT’; ‘O3+ BRIDAL

FACIAL KIT VITAMIN C GLOWING SKIN’ and ‘O3+ BRIDAL

FACIAL KIT RADIANT AND GLOWING SKIN; in any other manner

whatsoever so as to infringe upon the plaintiff’s copyright.

(b) directly or indirectly dealing in any products/packaging/label bearing

the mark ‘DERMOMELAN’ and/or from using any other mark that may be

deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark ‘DERMOMELAN’.

27. Accordingly, the captioned application stands disposed of.

CS(COMM)633/2022

28. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 11.02.2026.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J

NOVEMBER 21, 2025/hp/IB