The Delhi High Court recently denied interim relief to Ayurvedic cosmetics company Forest Essentials in a trademark dispute with Ayurvedic baby care products company Baby Forest. Justice Anish Dayal noted that the word “forest” is generic and that Forest Essentials cannot claim dominance over it without separate registration. The decision cited a precedent from Vardhman Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Vardhman Properties Ltd., emphasizing that registration does not grant exclusive rights to a part of a trademark.
The Delhi High Court noted that Forest Essentials had claimed uniqueness in the combined use of ‘Forest’ and ‘Essentials’ in their reply to an examination report. This led the court to apply the ‘anti-dissection rule’ against the plaintiff. The case involved Forest Essentials seeking an interim injunction against Baby Forest in a trademark dispute filed last year.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal argued that there was product confusion, citing customer emails, Instagram comments, and Google search suggestions. Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing Baby Forest, pointed out that the plaintiff’s trademark is ‘Forest Essentials’ and not ‘Forest Essentials Baby’ or ‘Forest Essentials-Baby Essentials.’ He also noted that Forest Essentials applied for the ‘Forest Essentials Baby’ mark only after the court had refused an injunction in August 2023.
Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta emphasized that Baby Forest exclusively sells baby care products, while these products are only a small part of Forest Essentials’ range. The Court noted that Forest Essentials claimed ownership of ‘Forest Essentials Baby’ and ‘Forest Essentials-Baby Essentials’ marks but did not seek registration until after being denied interim relief last year. The terms ‘Baby’ and ‘Baby Essentials’ were used descriptively by Forest Essentials.
Regarding alleged deceptive similarity, the Court found the packaging and logos of the two companies’ products very dissimilar. A few social media references and a Google search suggestion were insufficient to prove widespread confusion. Emails from Oberoi and Hyatt Hotels were dated after Baby Forest’s reply to a cease-and-desist notice from Forest Essentials.
The Court dismissed Forest Essentials’ request for an injunction against Baby Forest, reasoning that the potential for slight confusion among consumers doesn’t warrant it. The Court highlighted that parents, the primary purchasers of baby care products, are diligent in selecting the right items for their babies, making them less prone to confusion. Moreover, in today’s era of online shopping, customers often verify product origins and brands, even when experiencing some uncertainty.
Therefore, the Court denied Forest Essentials’ injunction request and scheduled further proceedings for July 10.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International
