In a significant ruling on trademark law, the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the registered trademark 'D-TAN', holding that the expression merely describes the purpose of skincare products and cannot be exclusively owned by one company. The Court ruled that descriptive terms commonly used in the cosmetics industry cannot be granted monopoly protection under trademark law.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after Honasa Consumer Ltd., the company behind the Aqualogica skincare brand, challenged the registration of the trademark 'D-TAN' held by Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The controversy began when Visage issued a cease-and-desist notice in April 2023, alleging that Honasa's product "Aqualogica Detan + Dewy Sunscreen" infringed its registered trademark. Honasa responded that the word "Detan" is widely used across the skincare industry to describe products intended to reduce tanning and therefore cannot function as an exclusive trademark. It subsequently approached the High Court seeking rectification of the trademark register.
Court Observations
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela closely examined whether the expression 'D-TAN' possessed the distinctiveness required for trademark protection.
The Court observed that the words "de" and "tan", when read together, naturally convey the idea of removing skin tanning. Since the products involved belonged to the skincare category, consumers would immediately understand the expression as describing the product's intended function rather than identifying its commercial source.
The bench observed,
"The words 'D-TAN' or 'DETAN' would be nothing other than a pure description of the goods manufactured by both the parties."
The Court also found that several manufacturers in the cosmetics industry use the expressions "Detan" or "D-TAN" in a descriptive manner. According to the judgment, this widespread industry usage further demonstrated that the term is common to trade rather than unique to any single business.
Registration Failed to Meet Legal Requirements
Justice Gedela further noted that when Visage had applied for registration, the Trade Marks Registry had initially objected on the ground that the mark lacked distinctiveness. The Court found that the company had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation to overcome those objections.
The judgment stated that merely showing commercial success or high sales figures is not enough to convert a descriptive expression into a distinctive trademark. The Court observed that although Visage produced sales data and chartered accountant certificates, it failed to establish that consumers exclusively associated the term "D-TAN" with its products alone.
The bench observed,
"Commercial success... does not, by itself, establish that the mark 'D-TAN' has acquired secondary significance."
Petitioner Held to Be an Aggrieved Person
The Court also rejected the objection regarding the maintainability of Honasa's petition.
It held that once Visage sought to prevent Honasa from using the descriptive expression "Detan" through a legal notice, Honasa became an "aggrieved person" under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act and was entitled to seek cancellation of the registration.
Court's Decision
Allowing the petition, the Delhi High Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of the trademark 'D-TAN' (Application No. 2065580, Class 3) granted in favour of Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt. Ltd.
The Court further ordered that the mark be removed from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks from receipt of the judgment.
No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details
Case Title: Honasa Consumer Ltd. v. Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Another
Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023
Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Decision Date: 19 June 2026
