The High Court allowed Lotus Herbals’ plea, issuing an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned “LOTUS SALON”/ “LOTUS SALON” marks or any deceptively similar variants for beauty and salon services or products.
Lotus Herbals has used and registered the “LOTUS” mark since 1993 and obtained “well-known” trademark status in 2025. In July 2025, Lotus Herbals discovered the defendant’s use via social media ad and a website. Lotus Herbals sent a cease-and-desist notice, to which the defendant did not reply.
Defendant filed trademark applications for “LOTUS SALON” marks in July 2025, after the legal notice, and continued to use the marks for allied beauty and salon services.
Lotus Herbals filed suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and ancillary reliefs for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and delivery up, claiming exclusive rights in its “LOTUS” family of marks (including registered and well-known marks for beauty/cosmetic products and salon services). The plaintiff alleged Lotus Beauty Salon was using identical and deceptively similar marks, aiming to ride on its established goodwill.
The plaintiff argued that it was an established company with massive sales, 1,87,600+ retail and 25,600+ salon outlets, and significant promotional investments. Its mark “LOTUS” (and family) was already registered and recognized in the industry and by the Trademark Registry as well-known.
The plaintiff demonstrated prior adoption, long use, registration, and well-known status, showing probability of confusion. It emphasized the defendant’s dishonesty and intent to ride on plaintiff’s reputation by demonstrating that this was a textbook case of “triple identity”: identical mark, identical product category, identical trade channel and consumer base.
The Bench comprising Justice Tejas Karia found that the case sufficiently reflected “triple identity” and that defendant’s adoption was prima facie dishonest. The Court held the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable harm clearly favoured the plaintiff. Applying settled precedent for ex-parte injunctions, the Court granted relief to prevent further dilution/confusion until the next hearing on 26 February 2026.
The Court directed the defendant and all those acting on its behalf to immediately cease using, advertising, or soliciting business under “LOTUS SALON” or any identical/deceptively similar marks for beauty and salon goods and services, including on the internet and e-commerce platforms. The matter remains pending for the next hearing, but the ex-parte order offers Lotus Herbals interim protection for its trademarks and market presence.
