Permanent Injunction Order Against Counterfeit Goods of the Trademark “Huda Beauty”

Permanent Injunction Order Against Counterfeit Goods of the Trademark “Huda Beauty”. The District Judge (Commercial Court), New Delhi, in the case of Huda Beauty Limited (the "Plaintiff") vs M/s Vision Enterprises and Ors (the "Defendants"), issued a permanent injunction against the sale of counterfeit goods infringing upon the trademark “Huda Beauty.” This landmark ruling reinforces the judiciary's firm stance on combating counterfeit products in the Indian market and sets a strong precedent for global cosmetic brands operating in India.
Background of the Case
Huda Beauty, an internationally acclaimed cosmetic brand founded by Huda Kattan, is known for its high-quality makeup products, especially liquid lipsticks, eyeshadow palettes, and foundations. The brand enjoys immense popularity among Indian consumers and has built a strong market presence based on quality and brand loyalty. However, due to its fame, the brand has often been a victim of counterfeiting a widespread menace where unauthorised parties illegally manufacture and sell fake versions of original products, thereby deceiving consumers and damaging the brand’s goodwill.
Legal Grounds and Sections Invoked
The suit was primarily based on violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The following sections were invoked:

Section 29(1): Trademark Infringement by use of a mark identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered trademark in relation to the goods for which it is registered.

Section 29(2): Infringement when identical or similar marks are used in relation to similar goods/services causing likelihood of confusion.

Section 29(4): Protection for well-known trademarks even if used for unrelated goods, due to unfair advantage or damage to reputation.

Section 134: Jurisdiction of courts in cases of trademark infringement.

Section 135: Provides for relief in suits for infringement including injunction, damages, account of profits, and delivery/destruction of infringing goods.

Court’s Observations
After examining the evidence, including market samples, packaging materials, and online listings, the Delhi High Court concluded that:

Huda Beauty is a well-known trademark, enjoying both international and Indian recognition.

The defendants’ actions amounted to clear trademark infringement and passing off, thereby misleading consumers and tarnishing the brand’s reputation.

The counterfeit goods were being sold in identical packaging, mimicking the look and feel of original Huda Beauty products, thus creating confusion in the minds of the general public.

The Court emphasized that such acts not only result in commercial loss to the original brand but also pose serious risks to consumer health and safety, especially in the cosmetics industry.
Permanent Injunction Order
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction under Section 135(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, restraining the defendants from:

Using the “Huda Beauty” trademark or any deceptively similar mark.

Manufacturing, packaging, distributing, or selling counterfeit products under the infringing mark.

Advertising the infringing goods in any form — online or offline.

The Court also ordered:

Destruction of all counterfeit inventory.

Costs and damages to be paid to the plaintiff for loss of goodwill and business.

Directions to online platforms to take down infringing product listings.

Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is not just a victory for Huda Beauty; it is a broader affirmation of brand protection laws in India. It serves as a reminder that:

Registered trademarks enjoy statutory protection under the Indian Trade Marks Act.

Well-known marks are afforded special protection under Section 29(4) even for unrelated products.

Counterfeiting will invite strict legal consequences, including injunctions, damages, and destruction of goods.

Implications for Brand Owners and Consumers
For brand owners:

Always register your trademark under relevant classes.

Monitor the market and take swift legal action under Sections 29, 134, and 135 of the Act.

Leverage both civil remedies (injunctions and damages) and criminal provisions under Section 103 and 104 (counterfeiting punishable with imprisonment).

For consumers:

Purchase products only from verified sellers and authorized platforms.

Beware of products with unusual pricing or packaging inconsistencies.

Conclusion
The permanent injunction order against counterfeit Huda Beauty products marks a significant development in trademark enforcement in India. It reflects the growing seriousness with which Indian courts view brand protection and consumer safety. As the counterfeit market continues to pose challenges, such judicial precedents empower brand owners to proactively safeguard their intellectual property rights and maintain trust in the market.

The District Judge (Commercial Court), New Delhi, in the case of Huda Beauty Limited (the "Plaintiff") vs M/s Vision Enterprises and Ors (the "Defendants"), issued a permanent injunction against the sale of counterfeit goods infringing upon the trademark “Huda Beauty.” This landmark ruling reinforces the judiciary's firm stance on combating counterfeit products in the Indian market and sets a strong precedent for global cosmetic brands operating in India.

Background of the Case

Huda Beauty, an internationally acclaimed cosmetic brand founded by Huda Kattan, is known for its high-quality makeup products, especially liquid lipsticks, eyeshadow palettes, and foundations. The brand enjoys immense popularity among Indian consumers and has built a strong market presence based on quality and brand loyalty. However, due to its fame, the brand has often been a victim of counterfeiting a widespread menace where unauthorised parties illegally manufacture and sell fake versions of original products, thereby deceiving consumers and damaging the brand’s goodwill.

Legal Grounds and Sections Invoked

The suit was primarily based on violations of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The following sections were invoked:

Section 29(1): Trademark Infringement by use of a mark identical with, or deceptively similar to, the registered trademark in relation to the goods for which it is registered.
Section 29(2): Infringement when identical or similar marks are used in relation to similar goods/services causing likelihood of confusion.
Section 29(4): Protection for well-known trademarks even if used for unrelated goods, due to unfair advantage or damage to reputation.
Section 134: Jurisdiction of courts in cases of trademark infringement.
Section 135: Provides for relief in suits for infringement including injunction, damages, account of profits, and delivery/destruction of infringing goods.

Court’s Observations

After examining the evidence, including market samples, packaging materials, and online listings, the Delhi High Court concluded that:

Huda Beauty is a well-known trademark, enjoying both international and Indian recognition.
The defendants’ actions amounted to clear trademark infringement and passing off, thereby misleading consumers and tarnishing the brand’s reputation.
The counterfeit goods were being sold in identical packaging, mimicking the look and feel of original Huda Beauty products, thus creating confusion in the minds of the general public.

The Court emphasized that such acts not only result in commercial loss to the original brand but also pose serious risks to consumer health and safety, especially in the cosmetics industry.

Permanent Injunction Order

The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction under Section 135(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, restraining the defendants from:

Using the “Huda Beauty” trademark or any deceptively similar mark.
Manufacturing, packaging, distributing, or selling counterfeit products under the infringing mark.
Advertising the infringing goods in any form — online or offline.

The Court also ordered:

Destruction of all counterfeit inventory.
Costs and damages to be paid to the plaintiff for loss of goodwill and business.
Directions to online platforms to take down infringing product listings.

Why This Judgment Matters

This decision is not just a victory for Huda Beauty; it is a broader affirmation of brand protection laws in India. It serves as a reminder that:

Registered trademarks enjoy statutory protection under the Indian Trade Marks Act.
Well-known marks are afforded special protection under Section 29(4) even for unrelated products.
Counterfeiting will invite strict legal consequences, including injunctions, damages, and destruction of goods.

Implications for Brand Owners and Consumers

For brand owners:

Always register your trademark under relevant classes.
Monitor the market and take swift legal action under Sections 29, 134, and 135 of the Act.
Leverage both civil remedies (injunctions and damages) and criminal provisions under Section 103 and 104 (counterfeiting punishable with imprisonment).

For consumers:

Purchase products only from verified sellers and authorized platforms.
Beware of products with unusual pricing or packaging inconsistencies.

Conclusion

The permanent injunction order against counterfeit Huda Beauty products marks a significant development in trademark enforcement in India. It reflects the growing seriousness with which Indian courts view brand protection and consumer safety. As the counterfeit market continues to pose challenges, such judicial precedents empower brand owners to proactively safeguard their intellectual property rights and maintain trust in the market.