NEHA vs NEHA
The Delhi High Court in Vikas Gupta & Anr. v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics gave important clarity on using common Indian names like “𝗡𝗘𝗛𝗔” as trademarks.
The dispute?
Plaintiffs (Gupta): using “NEHA” for Mehndi & herbal products (claimed since 1992).
Defendant (Sahni Cosmetics): using “NEHA” for face creams (claimed since 1990).
What the court found?
Evidence matters: Plaintiffs’ earliest proof was an ITR (AY 1995–96), while Defendant’s documents and trademark registrations came only from 2006. Both sides lacked strong dated invoices, packaging, or promotional material from their claimed start dates.
Distinctiveness is key: Common names don’t get automatic exclusivity. You must prove secondary meaning through advertising, sales, and consumer recognition. Justice Narula relied on People Interactive v. Pahwa (2016), reaffirming that common words get narrower protection.
Functional Dissimilarity: Even though both products fall under Class 3 (cosmetics), the Court said Mehndi (plant-based dye) and face creams (chemical emulsions) are different in purpose, composition, trade channels, and consumer expectations. Sharing shelf space ≠ consumer confusion.
Goodwill is product-specific: Reputation built for Mehndi didn’t automatically extend to creams.
Acquiescence: The defence failed. The Court noted acquiescence requires (1) clear knowledge of infringement, (2) prolonged delay, and (3) prejudice to the infringer. None were proved.
Consistency counts: Defendant’s inconsistent “first-use” dates in applications hurt credibility.
The Verdict:
The Court dismissed infringement & passing off claims. Despite identical marks, there was no confusion due to functional dissimilarity and Plaintiffs’ goodwill being limited to Mehndi. Defendant’s cancellation petitions also failed for lack of prior use evidence.
Lesson for Businesses (Court's Checklist):
Build robust evidence from day one (invoices, packaging).
Show advertising & sales proving consumer recognition.
Register early & renew consistently.
Bottom line: Common names can be trademarks—but only if you earn distinctiveness with evidence, strategy, and consistency.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Vikas Gupta & Anr. v. M/S Sahni Cosmetics
- Court: Delhi High Court
- Judge: Justice Sanjeev Narula
- Date: 12th August 2025
- Result: Suit for infringement & passing off dismissed. Cancellation petitions also dismissed.
Disclaimer:
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Legal Terminus is not responsible for any changes in laws or regulations that occur after the publication date of this article. For specific legal advice, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Regards
CS Shipra Mishra
(B. Com, LL.B, FCS, Insolvency Professional, Registered TM Agent)
