{"id":128767,"date":"2025-04-25T09:10:10","date_gmt":"2025-04-25T03:40:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=128767"},"modified":"2025-04-25T11:46:15","modified_gmt":"2025-04-25T06:16:15","slug":"faces-trademark","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/faces-trademark\/","title":{"rendered":"Manash Lifestyle’s “FACES” Trademark Secured in Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Background of the Case<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

Manash Lifestyle Private Limited, incorporated in 2011, is known for its online beauty and wellness platform ‘PURPLLE’. In 2021, Manash Lifestyle acquired the trademarks “FACES” and “FACESCANADA” along with the associated goodwill from its predecessor Faces Cosmetics Inc. and Faces Cosmetics India Private Limited through a Share Purchase Agreement.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2024, Manash Lifestyle discovered that Ms. Shabina Kundial, the Respondent had registered the trademark “FACES BY SHABINA KUNDIAL”<\/span><\/span>\u00a0(<\/span>Shabina\u2019s<\/span> Mark)<\/span> under Class 44 for beauty care and related services. Believing this mark to be deceptively <\/span>similar to<\/span> its <\/span>own, Manash Lifestyle filed a rectification petition<\/span> before the Delhi High Court<\/span>, requesting its removal. Despite being served notice, <\/span>Ms. Shabina<\/span> did not appear in <\/span>C<\/span>ourt or <\/span>submit<\/span> a reply, leading to an ex<\/span> p<\/span>arte<\/span> decision.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Arguments raised\u00a0<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

Manash Lifestyle argued that its “FACES” trademark has been in use since 2009, establishing significant goodwill and brand recognition. It was contended that Shabina\u2019s Mark was confusingly similar, incorporating the distinctive element \u201cFACES,\u201d and that the similarity in services under Class 44 could mislead consumers.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Analysis of the Court<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

The Court examined the evidence and concluded that Manash Lifestyle\u2019s “FACES” trademark had acquired distinctiveness due to long-term use and brand-building efforts. The Court found Shabina\u2019s Mark to be deceptively similar, making it likely to cause confusion among consumers. Since Ms. Shabina did not contest the claims, the Court inferred that the adoption of Shabina\u2019s Mark was dishonest. Allowing Shabina\u2019s Mark to remain registered would mislead consumers and contravene Sections 9, 11, and 18 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Conclus<\/span><\/b>ion<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n

Based on these findings, the Court ruled in favor of Manash Lifestyle and directed the Trade Marks Registry to remove Shabina\u2019s Mark, bearing\u00a0application no. 4686526, from the Register. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Trade Marks Registry for enforcement.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Citation: <\/span><\/b>Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs Shabina Kundial & Anr. <\/span><\/i>High Court of Delhi,<\/span><\/i> 14th February, 2025 [<\/span><\/i>C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 88\/2024 & I.A. 33225\/2024]. Available at: <\/span><\/i>https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/64996729\/<\/span><\/i><\/a><\/p>\n

Article Author: T K Tushar<\/p>\n

Article and Accessibility Review: Benita Alphonsa Basil<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court upholds FACES trademark, orders to remove deceptive \u2018FACES BY SHABINA KUNDIAL\u2019 mark registered under Class 44.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":128772,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":85,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5495,11],"tags":[486,6665,6666,6667,407],"class_list":["post-128767","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-case-reviews","category-trademarks","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-faces-trademark","tag-purplle","tag-shabina-kundial","tag-trademark-dispute"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=128767"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128767\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":128817,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/128767\/revisions\/128817"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/128772"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=128767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=128767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=128767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}