Descriptive Marks Cannot Be Monopolised: Delhi High Court Orders Rectification of 'D-TAN' Trademark for Being Purely Descriptive and Devoid of Distinctive Character

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: Honasa Consumer Ltd vs Visage Beauty And Health Care Pvt Ltd & Anr.

Citation: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023

High Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

Date of Judgment: 19.06.2026

Area of Law: Trademark Law, Intellectual Property Rights, Rectification Proceedings

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court allowed a rectification petition filed by Honasa Consumer Ltd (petitioner) seeking cancellation of the trademark 'D-TAN' registered in favour of Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt Ltd (respondent no.1). The Court held that the mark 'D-TAN' is purely descriptive of the goods (skincare products for removing tan) and devoid of distinctive character, thereby violating Section 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Despite the respondent's claim of extensive use for 15 years and substantial sales turnover exceeding Rs. 50 crores, the Court found that the respondent failed to prove that the mark had acquired secondary significance or distinctiveness. The Court also noted that the respondent itself used 'D-TAN' as a descriptor rather than a trademark, with its prominent brand being 'Professional O3+'. The registration was ordered to be cancelled and removed from the Register of Trade Marks.

3. Relevant Facts

Petitioner's Background

• Honasa Consumer Ltd (petitioner) was incorporated in 2016 and launched products under the trademark 'AQUALOGICA' in 2021, including 'AQUALOGICA DETAN + DEWY SUNSCREEN'.

• The petitioner received a cease and desist notice dated 14.04.2023 from respondent no.1 alleging infringement of its registered trademark 'D-TAN'.

• The petitioner replied on 05.05.2023, contending that 'D-TAN' is a descriptive term commonly used in the trade to denote removal of tanned skin, and therefore not eligible for trademark protection.

Respondent's Trademark

• Respondent no.1 filed trademark application no.2065580 for the mark 'D-TAN' in Class-3 on 09.12.2010.

• The mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal on 11.09.2017 and registered on 30.01.2018.

• Respondent no.1 claimed to have coined the mark in 2009 and used it continuously for over 15 years.

Objections Raised by Trademark Registry

• The Trade Marks Registry raised objections under Section 9(1)(a) and (b) of the Act on 02.02.2012, stating that the mark was devoid of distinctive character and consisted exclusively of marks indicating the kind, quality, or intended purpose of the goods.

Respondent's Response to Objections

• In its reply dated 30.09.2014, respondent no.1 failed to provide any substantive justification to overcome the Section 9 objections.

• The respondent vaguely claimed that the mark was represented with distinctive artistic work but provided no such evidence.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.