Defendant’s Mark Is Almost Imitative And Identical: Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction In Favour Of Nykaa Against Cosmetify In TM Infringement Suit
The Delhi High Court observed that the Defendant’s mark is almost imitative and identical to that of the Plaintiff’s mark and therefore granted an ad-interim injunction to Nykaa against Cosmetify in a trademark infringement suit.
The Court directed the Defendants to take down their website and online listings related to the mark Oykaa immediately. The Court observed that the service and goods as well as the trade channels and customers of the two parties are identical, thereby satisfying the Triple Identity Test.
“Considering the above position, the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs, considering that the products in the present case are cosmetic, healthcare and wellness products, and quality of all such products is of utmost importance. Such products are for personal use of consumers. If the Defendants are not injuncted in the present case, it will cause irreparable loss/ harm not only to the Plaintiffs business but also to the customers using such products who are under the garb that the same is being manufactured by the Plaintiffs”, Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed.
Advocate Saikrishna Rajagopal appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff.
Nykaa, a leading e-commerce platform specializing in beauty and wellness products, filed a trademark infringement suit against Mr. Pintu Kumar Yadav and Cosmetify. Nykaa contended that the defendants had misused the Nykaa trademark by using a deceptively similar mark, Cosmetify. Nykaa alleged that the Defendant’s OYKAA mark was only one letter different from their own and that the two marks were used in conjunction with similar colors and fonts. Nykaa also argued that the Defendant’s website used a similar layout and design and copied their terms and conditions, even including provisions that did not apply to OYKAA's business.
The Court noted that the Defendants' mark was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark and that the former had adopted the mark to piggyback on the latter’s goodwill and reputation. The Court also observed that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for irreparable harm.
“Considering the above stated position in the judgment Ahmed Oomerbhoy (Supra) it is clear that in the present case also that the Defendants have adopted a deceptively similar mark to that of the Plaintiffs’ mark/name ‘NYKAA’, in order to piggy back on the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation in an identical field of business, which will cause confusion to the customers”, the Court noted.
Therefore, the Court granted an injunction restraining the Defendants from using the mark/name/logo 'OYKAA' or any other mark which is identical or similar to that of the Plaintiffs' mark/name/logo 'NYKAA' in respect of cosmetic, healthcare products, wellness products, clothing, jewelry, accessories or any other cognate and allied goods..
Accordingly, the Court allowed the application and granted an ad-interim injunction.
Cause Title: FSN E-Commerce Ventures Ltd & Anr v Pintu Kumar Yadav & Anr
