Delhi HC Denies Interim Relief To Forest Essentials Owner In Trademark Dispute Case Against Baby Forest Ayurveda

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to owner of Forest Essentials, Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd, in trademark dispute against Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd.

The Court dismissed the Appeal filed against an order by the single-judge whereby the Applications filed by the Appellant under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were dismissed and an interim order of injunction against the Respondents for restraining them from using the mark ‘BABY FOREST’ and ‘BABY FOREST-SOHAM OF AYUVEDA’ was refused.

The division bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain noted that both the mark are composite marks and ‘FOREST’ being a dictionary word, to claim any monopoly over the same, stringent evidence test of having required a secondary meaning in the same would be required from the Appellant.

“Furthermore, the adoption of the mark by the respondents, at least at this stage, cannot also be said to be mala fide or dishonest. The respondents claim to be dealing with baby products which are ayurvedic and derived from the forest. Merely because it gave up its claim for ‘SOUNDARYA’ and/or ‘BABY ESSENTIALS’ or changed its corporate name, in our view, at least prima facie, not sufficient to attribute dishonest intention to the respondents for the adoption of its mark. The judgment of this Court in MAC Personal Care (supra) therefore is not applicable to the facts of the present case”, the Court held.

Applying the test of a person with imperfect recollection, the Court did not find the marks of the Appellant and the Respondents to be deceptively similar.

It clarified that any proof of actual deception and confusion will be tested at the time of final hearing of the suit.

As far as the ‘Tree’ logo and overall packaging were concerned, the Court again found the same to be sufficient to, at least at the present stage where the Court were to apply the trinity test of good prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm and injury, to be made out by the Appellant for grant of injunction.

“….we do agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has erred in defining the ‘initial confusion test’….. we do not find that the adoption of the above test by the learned Single Judge itself is sufficient to upset the impugned order, as we do agree with the final conclusion of the learned Single Judge on facts of the case”, the Court held.

It was the case of the Appellant that the Respondents have illegally, knowingly and with malice, adopted the challenged Marks ‘BABY FOREST’ and ‘BABY FOREST–SOHAM OF AYURVEDA’ as well as a similar ‘Tree’ logo for selling ayurveda based products for babies and other allied goods, which are deceptively similar to the appellant’s trademarks ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS’, ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS-BABY ESSENTIALS’, ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS BABY’ and ‘LUXURIOUS AYURVEDA’.

It was asserted by the appellant that the Respondents were operating under the name M/s Landsmill Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., but have rebranded to ‘Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited’, sometime around December 2022 - January 2023, to mimic the appellant.

It was asserted that the respondents have also maliciously obtained the registration on a ‘proposed to be used basis‟, in 2020 of the mark ‘BABY FOREST’ against which the appellant has filed rectifications.

It was further asserted that the respondents have also actively encouraged customer confusion on social media by not responding to customers asking if ‘BABY FOREST’ was part of ‘FOREST ESSENTIALS’.

The appellant contended that it has also received queries from its own clients asking whether the respondents were associated with it. Further, the Google search engine, when ‘is baby f’ was typed, has also predicted the search query as ‘is baby forest and forest essentials same’.

It was also their objection that the respondents also launched a store in Saket, Delhi, in the very same mall as the appellant’s store, to follow the footsteps of the appellant.

The appellant asserted that, therefore, there is actual evidence of confusion and deception being caused due to the respondents using the Challenged Marks.

The Court, however, denied interim relief to the Appellant and dismissed the appeal on merits.

Case Title: Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd.

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain

Date of Judgement: 27.02.2026