The Delhi High Court has issued an injunction preventing the owner of an online platform that sells makeup and skincare products from using the brand name "Oykaa" or any other similar name that might be confused with "Nykaa." "Nykaa" is an e-commerce company specializing in beauty, wellness, and fashion products.

Justice Prathiba M Singh has ordered the prompt removal of the website www.oykaa.com and any other online listings associated with it.

The court has instructed that the website www.oykaa.com should be suspended and locked by the relevant Domain Name Registrar (DNR). If the defendants fail to take down the website, Nykaa is granted the freedom to approach the DNR for the suspension of the domain name. Additionally, since Oykaa's products are listed on third-party websites like India Mart, Amazon, and Flipkart, the court has directed these online platforms to remove the listings if the website owner does not do so.

The court was addressing a lawsuit filed by Nykaa, which claimed that its trademark had been infringed upon by Pintu Kumar Yadav, the owner of Oykaa, and the manufacturer responsible for producing Oykaa's products.

Nykaa alleged that the defendants had deliberately chosen the mark 'OYKAA,' which was deceptively similar to its own 'NYKAA' mark, even though the letter 'N' was missing. Nykaa argued that there was no valid reason for adopting a mark that closely resembled its own, and this extended to creating a similar website design for the sale of identical products, such as cosmetic items.

The court noted that the defendants' adoption of the mark was relatively recent, and the name and overall design of Oykaa's website strongly suggested that the defendants were deliberately trying to imitate and duplicate Nykaa's mark, likely with the intention of benefiting financially from this deception.

In granting an ad-interim injunction in favor of Nykaa, the court determined that the balance of convenience favored Nykaa. This decision was influenced by the fact that the products involved in the case were related to cosmetics, healthcare, and wellness, where product quality is of paramount importance.

The court stated that the products in question are meant for personal use by consumers, and if the defendants are not restrained in this case, it could result in irreparable harm, both to the plaintiff's business and to the customers using these products. This is because customers might mistakenly believe that these products are manufactured by the plaintiff, which could lead to confusion and potential harm.