‘Not every Neha can be yours’: HC in trademark tussle case

The legal battle was between Sahni Cosmetics (plaintiff), which claimed it had been selling face creams under ‘NEHA’ brand since 1990, and Neha Herbals (defendant), which said it had been doing mehendi since 1992.
Trademark tussle: Children's magazine 'Champak' takes BCCI to court over its robotic dog's name
Trademark tussle: Children's magazine 'Champak' takes BCCI to court over its robotic dog's name
Updated on
2 min read

NEW DELHI: IN a ruling that’s sure to ruffle the feathers of every second girl named ‘Neha’ (and every company trying to trademark it), the Delhi High Court has said that name ‘NEHA’ can be protected as a trademark but only if it has been used long enough for people to think of it as a brand and not their cousin’s best friend.

Justice Sanjeev Narula, clearly having seen enough of these ‘Neha wars’, laid it out plainly. “The mark ‘NEHA’, while capable of functioning as a trademark, is not a coined term. It is a popular forename in India, making it inherently weaker regarding source identification... The term ‘NEHA’ not being a distinctive word, the plaintiffs cannot monopolise the use of ‘NEHA’ for all cosmetics unless a strong secondary meaning across product categories is proved — something that has not been shown on record,” read the May 19 order.

The legal battle was between Sahni Cosmetics (plaintiff), which claimed it had been selling face creams under the ‘NEHA’ brand since 1990, and Neha Herbals (defendant), which said it had been doing mehendi and herbal stuff since 1992. Sahni sought to cancel Neha Herbals’ trademark rights altogether. But the court wasn’t buying it, as Sahni couldn’t provide proper evidence, no invoices, no steady trademark records, and not even a nostalgic ’90s TV ad to prove their point.

“Trademark rights do not arise in the abstract... rather, those rights accrue through tangible trading and commercial activities that identify the origin of products or services to the consumers,” read the order.

“While plaintiffs’ goodwill in the trademark ‘NEHA’ is established, it remains confined to the domain of mehendi and herbal hair-care preparations. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that such goodwill extended to creams or general cosmetics before the institution of the suit,” the court said.

The court said the defendant has failed to discharge the burden of proving prior use in terms of the products for which the plaintiff has registration or any statutory ground under Sections 47 or 57 of the Trade Marks Act to warrant cancellation.

Related Stories

No stories found.

X
Open in App
The New Indian Express
www.newindianexpress.com