After Emami’s swimsuit, Excessive Courtroom restrains HUL from “passing off” males’s skincare merchandise underneath “Glow & Good-looking”

The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom has handed an order restraining FMCG main Hindustan Unilever from passing off its males’s vary of skincare merchandise by promoting and advertising underneath “Glow & Good-looking”, observing that Emami has been capable of make out a “robust prima facie case” on deserves because the case of passing off is worried.

“…there shall be an order by way of prayer (c) of the Discover of Movement. In view of the truth that the respondent (HUL) has already launched its product, the respondent is granted a month to take vital steps to adjust to this order,” mentioned justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom, whereas passing the order on April 9.

Infringement

Notably, Kolkata-based Emami Ltd, the maker of mens’ skincare merchandise underneath “Honest And Good-looking”, had filed a swimsuit round 4 12 months in the past for infringement and passing off in opposition to Hindustan Unilever (HUL), alleging that HUL’s use of the mark “Glow and Good-looking” constitutes infringement of its mark “Honest and Good-looking”.

Emami’s prayer was a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the HUL from passing off its mens’ grooming, skincare and beauty merchandise by promoting, advertising and promoting underneath the mark Glow & Good-looking and/or “Good-looking”.

Generic time period

On behalf of HUL, it was contended that the mark “Good-looking” is only descriptive and incapable of any distinctiveness. “Good-looking” is a generic time period additionally utilized by different opponents within the business. In any occasion, “Good-looking” is just not solely recognized with the petitioner (Emami) and the petitioner has by no means used the mark “Good-looking” as a standalone mark. In truth, whereas acquiring registration of the mark “Honest and Good-looking” a disclaimer had been granted to the petitioner insofar because the phrase “Good-looking” is worried. In such circumstances, the petitioner is estopped from claiming any proper within the phrase “Good-looking”. It was additionally contended that the petitioner had suppressed all filings earlier than the Registry and on that floor alone this software is liable to be dismissed.

“Admittedly, the mark “Honest and Good-looking” is being utilized by the petitioner since 2005, lengthy previous to respondent’s mark “Glow and Good-looking” launched in 2020. The petitioner has given prominence to the mark ‘Good-looking’ with in depth publicity campaigns and large promoting…The sale figures of the product of the petitioner are in extra of ₹2,400 crore. A considerable quantity has additionally been spent on promoting. In short, the mark “Honest and Good-looking” is the creation of the petitioner…The respondent has been unable to provide any proof of precise use of the mark “Good-looking” by another entity in relation to males’s equity lotions,” the order mentioned.

A aware and deliberate determination by a competitor in adopting a number one, distinguished and important part of a commerce rival whereas looking for to vary the title of its present model is just not one thing which could be disregarded, the order noticed. “In selecting the phrase “Glow and Good-looking”, there’s additionally a component of taking unfair benefit of a number one, distinguished and important function of the petitioner’s mark which deceives or is prone to deceive. No one has any proper to characterize the products of any individual else. In doing so, the rival takes a “free experience”,” it added.

When contacted, an HUL spokesperson mentioned, “The Calcutta Excessive Courtroom has issued an order of injunction for passing-off after nearly 4 years in a swimsuit filed by Emami. We’re reviewing the order and can take applicable motion.”