Delhi High Court refuses interim relief to Forest Essentials in trademark dispute against Baby Forest

The Delhi High Court recently refused to grant interim relief to Ayurvedic cosmetics, skincare and perfume company Forest Essentials in a trademark dispute against Ayurvedic baby care products company Baby Forest [Mountain Valley Spring India Pvt Ltd v Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt Ltd]..Justice Anish Dayal observed that the word 'forest' in itself is generic and that Forest Essentials could not claim dominance over a part of its trademark without registering the part separately."The word ‘FOREST’ in itself is generic and plaintiff cannot claim dominance over the said part of their trademark having not sought registration under Section 17 (2) of the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision in Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhman Properties Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 4738, where it has been held that registration does not confer exclusive right in part of the mark," the order dated May 15 stated.Further, the Court noted that in a reply to an examination report, Forest Essentials had taken the stand that there was uniqueness in using 'Forest' and 'Essentials' together."Having achieved reputation in a unique combination of these two words which are uniquely coined, the ‘anti-dissection rule’ would therefore, have to apply against plaintiff," the Court said..The Court was hearing an application for interim injunction by Forest Essentials against Baby Forest in a trademark dispute suit filed last year..Senior Advocate Amit Sibal argued that there was confusion between the products of the companies, which he illustrated through images and by citing an email from a customer, an instagram comment by another customer, a Google search suggesting 'Is baby forest and forest essentials the same?', and emails from the Oberoi and Hyatt Hotels..Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta represented Baby Forest and pointed out that the plaintiff's mark was 'Forest Essentials' and not 'Forest Essentials Baby' or 'Forest Essentials-Baby Essentials'.Even when the word 'Baby' was used by the Forest Essentials for its baby-care products, the use of this word was to describe the intended purpose of the goods and not as a trademark, he added.Mehta further highlighted that Forest Essentials filed for the registration of the mark 'Forest Essentials Baby' only after the Court had refused to grant an order of injunction on August 9, 2023.Further, he underlined that Baby Forest exclusively sells baby care products while baby care products are only a small part of Forest Essentials' catalogue of products..The Court noted that though Forest Essentials was claiming proprietorship of the marks 'Forest Essential Baby' and 'Forest Essentials-Baby Essentials', the company had not sought to register these marks until after the Court denied it interim relief last year.The word 'Baby' and 'Baby Essentials' was used merely as a descriptive term by Forest Essentials, the Court observed..On the aspect of the alleged deceptive similarity between the products of the two companies, the Court observed that the packaging and the logo of the products were very dissimilar. .A couple of social media references are not enough to show that there is ‘widespread confusion’ or likelihood of the same, the Court added. It further opined that a Google search suggestion was not enough to show confusion as algorithms on Google work on a variety of factors.The emails from Oberoi and Hyatt Hotels were 'interestingly' dated after a reply sent by Baby Forest to a cease-and-desist notice sent by Forest Essentials, the Court further noted..On whether the products could confuse consumers, the Court took the view that slight possibility of minor, transient confusion cannot give Forest Essentials a right to get an injunction against Baby Forest.In respect of baby care products, the purchasers are parents, who will be careful about picking the right product for their baby and therefore, are much more alert, the Court explained."In today's world, where a substantial amount of retail purchase is through online medium, it is not uncommon for a customer to cross check the origin of the products and the particular brand that they are seeking to purchase, even if they are faced with a 'state of wonderment' as articulated in Under Armour Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion and Retail Ltd," it added..Accordingly, the Court rejected the application by Forest Essentials for an interim injunction and listed the matter before the Joint Registrar on July 10..Senior Advocate Amit Sibal was assisted by advocates Essenese Obhan (Obhan & Associates), Swathi Sukumar, Ayesha Guhathakurta, Yogita Rathore and Anjuri Saxena.Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta was assisted by advocates Sudeep Chatterjee (Singh & Singh Law Firm LLP), Rohan Swarup, Tanya Arora, Jaydeep Roy and Udit Dedhiya..[Read Judgment]