ADVERTISEMENTREMOVE AD

Copyright Infringement: Delhi HC Rejects Plea Against Deepika Padukone's 82e

A case was filed against Deepika Padukone's brand 82e by LOTUS Herbals Pvt.

Published
story-hero-img
i
Aa
Aa
Small
Aa
Medium
Aa
Large

The Delhi High Court refused to grant an injunction against Deepika Padukone's brand 82e in a suit filed by Lotus Herbals Pvt for copyright infringement, as per a report by NDTV.

In its plea, Lotus objected to Deepika's brand's use of the name Lotus Splash for the face wash. The company alleged infringement of their registered 'LOTUS' marks and misrepresentation of an association with them, the report stated.

ADVERTISEMENTREMOVE AD

LOTUS had reportedly sent a notice to 82e to cease using the name 'Lotus Splash,' following which it filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against its use. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, representing LOTUS, reportedly stated that the discussions that were held in 2021 for defendant 2 to be an agent of the plaintiff did not materialise.

Sibal further claimed that 82e had initially made a misstatement by claiming that they hadn't filed any trademark application for their products 'Patchouli Glow,' 'Turmeric Shield' and 'Licorice Beam'. When it was brought to the court, they termed it "lawyer's error." The NDTV report stated that 82e had argued that they had not sought registration for the mark "Lotus Splash" and were using "lotus" in "Lotus Splash" as a description. Sibal argued that the defendants presenting the use of "Lotus Splash" as descriptive did not align with the actual trademark applications they filed.

Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, who represented 82e, argued that Deepika's brand's use of the mark was not intended to infringe on the registered "LOTUS" trademarks of Lotus Herbals Pvt. Ltd. but rather to describe certain characteristics or features of their face wash.

The court noted that 82e's products' names, including 'Lotus Splash', were indicative of their main ingredient, like their other products like Turmeric Shield and Patchouli Glow. The HC ruled that there was no infringement and denied the injunction.

(With inputs by NDTV)

Speaking truth to power requires allies like you.
Become a Member
Monthly
6-Monthly
Annual
Check Member Benefits
×
×