The Delhi High Court recently declined to provide temporary relief to Forest Essentials, a company specializing in Ayurvedic cosmetics, skincare, and perfumes, in a trademark disagreement with Baby Forest, a company focused on Ayurvedic baby care products.

Justice Anish Dayal noted that the term 'forest' is inherently generic, and Forest Essentials cannot assert exclusive rights over a portion of its trademark without separately registering that part.

"The word ‘FOREST’ in itself is generic and plaintiff cannot claim dominance over the said part of their trademark having not sought registration under Section 17 (2) of the Act.''

The Court highlighted that in response to an examination report, Forest Essentials had argued that there was uniqueness in combining 'Forest' and 'Essentials' together.

"Having achieved reputation in a unique combination of these two words which are uniquely coined, the ‘anti-dissection rule’ would therefore, have to apply against plaintiff," the Court said.

The Court was considering an application for an interim injunction filed by Forest Essentials against Baby Forest in a trademark dispute lawsuit initiated last year.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal contended that there was a notable confusion between the products offered by the two companies. He supported his argument with visual evidence, including images, and cited various instances such as an email from a customer, an Instagram comment, a Google search query indicating similarity between Baby Forest and Forest Essentials, as well as correspondence from prestigious hotels like Oberoi and Hyatt.

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta represented Baby Forest and pointed out that the plaintiff's mark was 'Forest Essentials' and not 'Forest Essentials Baby' or 'Forest Essentials-Baby Essentials'.

Mehta emphasized that Forest Essentials applied for the registration of the mark 'Forest Essentials Baby' only after the Court had declined to issue an injunction order on August 9, 2023.

Furthermore, he emphasized that Baby Forest specializes solely in baby care products, whereas such products represent only a small portion of Forest Essentials' overall product range.

The Court observed that while Forest Essentials was asserting ownership of the marks 'Forest Essential Baby' and 'Forest Essentials-Baby Essentials', the company had not attempted to register these marks until after the Court rejected its request for interim relief last year.