Legal fairness prevails: Calcutta HC restrains HUL's 'Glow & Handsome' mark

The Calcutta High Court (HC) has issued an order of interim injunction, restraining Hindustan Unilever (HUL) from using the mark ‘Glow & Handsome’ following an application filed by Emami.

In its order passed on April 9, the court has granted HUL one month to take the necessary steps to comply with the order.

A spokesperson for HUL said, “The Calcutta HC has issued an order of injunction for passing off after almost four years in a suit filed by Emami. We are reviewing the order and will take appropriate action.”

Commenting on the matter, Shwetank Ginodia, partner at R Ginodia & Co. LLP, said, “We are glad that the court has allowed Emami’s application for interim injunction and restrained HUL from using the ‘Glow & Handsome’ mark. Emami’s stance that HUL has engaged in passing off has been vindicated.”

Emami was represented by a team led by senior advocate Ranjan Bachawat and Shwetank Ginodia.

Emami and HUL have been embroiled in a legal battle over the use of the ‘Glow & Handsome’ mark for four years.

In 2020, HUL rebranded its men’s range from ‘Fair & Lovely’ to ‘Glow & Handsome’. This move prompted Emami to immediately challenge HUL’s use of the mark ‘Glow & Handsome’ before the Calcutta HC, alleging infringement and passing off of Emami’s mark ‘Fair and Handsome’.

The order states that the petitioner has successfully established a strong prima facie case on merits regarding the passing off claim. It further asserts that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favours the orders being passed as requested by the petitioner.

Emami argued that ‘Glow & Handsome’ was deceptively similar to its registered mark, with ‘Handsome’ being a prominent, leading, and essential feature of its mark, ‘Fair and Handsome’.

Emami also asserted that it was the first user and pioneer in the men’s fairness cream segment.

Fair & Handsome was introduced in 2005. Total sales of the product, as mentioned in the order, exceeded Rs 2,430 crore up to 2019-20, with advertising expenses surpassing Rs 400 crore since 2005.

HUL countered that the term ‘Handsome’ was purely descriptive and lacked distinctiveness. It argued that ‘Handsome’ was a generic term also used by other competitors in the industry and was not used as a standalone mark.