In a recent suit [Honasa Consumer Pvt. Ltd. v. Manchanda Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. CS (COMM) 382/2022] filed by the Firm, the High Court of Delhi granted an ex parte ad interim injunction order against a cosmetic company restraining them from using the marks ‘Mamaveda’ and ‘Mamaveda (stylised)’ which were nearly identical to our client’s trademarks ‘Mamaearth’ and ‘Mamaearth (stylised)’ in respect of identical products.

The plaintiff – Honasa Consumer Pvt. Ltd., doing business as Mamaearth – provides e-commerce services in India and offers baby, skin, and hair care products, as well as mosquito protection roll on and creams. It coined, and adopted, the trademark MAMAEARTH in the year 2016, and has made a name for itself in the Indian market as a supplier of toxin-free and safe to use offerings for baby and beauty products. A start-up which launched its business in 2016, it become the first unicorn of 2022 in India.

‘Mamaearth’ and ‘Mamaearth (stylised)’ are registered trademarks of the plaintiff – it owns registration in several classes in India and internationally. Further, given the distinctive trade dress/packaging/overall get up in respect of its products, it has also secured statutory protection by securing trademark registrations for several of its labels it uses on its bestselling products.  

Earlier this year, the plaintiff came across products, bearing the marks ‘Mamaveda’ and ‘Mamaveda (stylised)’, being sold by the defendants on several e-commerce platforms in India. It launched an enquiry into the defendants’ (Manchanda Herbal Products Pvt. Ltd. and its Director) business activities which revealed that the defendants were using near identical trade dress/packaging/overall get up in respect of their products so as to sail as close as possible to the plaintiff’s products. Moreover, the defendants were also found to have secured registration for the mark ‘Mamaveda’ in the year 2020, and were operating a website under the name ‘www.mamaveda.in’. Interestingly, the outer carton of the defendants’ products indicated references to the word ‘Earth’ – ‘live life cleaner by making EARTH greener’, ‘our EARTH is choking and each one of us should limit our polluting activities’, and ‘save the EARTH’.

Aggrieved by the blatant misuse, the plaintiff took steps to file a rectification petition against the defendants’ registration in Class 3 followed by a lawsuit before the Delhi High Court alleging infringement and passing off. The single judge vide order dated May 31, 2022 opined it was evident that the defendants being in the same line of business as the plaintiff, were well aware of the plaintiff’s established reputation and goodwill in its prior, registered and well-known trademarks – ‘Mamaearth’ and ‘Mamaearth (stylised)’ – as well as the distinctive packaging/trade dress/overall get up of the latter’s products. Thus, the defendants could not feign ignorance of the plaintiff’s business and prior rights. Further, the court held that the adoption and use of the deceptively similar marks ‘Mamaveda’ and ‘Mamaveda (stylised)’ by the defendants, as well as the offending packaging/trade dress, all in respect of identical products, was not a mere coincidence but rather a glaring testimony to their dishonest and fraudulent intention to derive unjust pecuniary benefits. In other words, the defendants’ male fide intent was prima facie evident. 

The judge directed the defendants to remove use of the mark ‘Mamaveda’ and ‘Mamaveda (stylised)’ from all social media accounts as well as take down its listings from e-commerce platforms. In addition thereto, court commissioners were appointed by the court to visit the premises of the defendants and seize all products, promotional material, etc. bearing the impugned mark. The commissions were executed successfully and several infringing products were seized. 

The court order demonstrates that despite the defendants having obtained a registration for the mark ‘Mamaveda’, given their mala fide intent and blatant misuse, the court did not hesitate to grant an ex parte injunction restraining the misuse complained of by the plaintiff as well as appoint commissioners to seize infringing products and promotional materials.