‘FOREST’ Cannot Be Monopolised In Isolation; Composite Mark Must Be Judged As A Whole: Delhi High Court

The Division Bench examining the competing marks, observed that the appellant’s mark is a composite mark, with none of the two words “forest” or “essential”, qualifying as a dominant feature in isolation. The Court emphasised that the anti-dissection rule must therefore apply, meaning the mark must be evaluated as a whole rather than broken into individual components.

The Bench noted that at the time of seeking registration, it was the appellant’s own case before the Registrar of Trade Marks that the distinctiveness of “FOREST ESSENTIALS” lay in the unique juxtaposition of the two words together. Having taken that position, the appellant could not now seek to carve out exclusivity over the word “FOREST” alone, it noted.

Justice Naveen Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain observed, “…the mark of the appellant is a composite mark, with none of the two words, ‘forest’ or ‘essential’, qualifying as a dominant feature of the said composite mark. Therefore, the anti-dissection rule must be applied. Furthermore, it was the own case of the appellant before the learned Registrar of Trade Marks at the time of the registration of its mark ‘FOREST ESSENTIAL’, that the use of the said words together was a unique juxtaposition that rendered the mark to be inherently distinctive”.

“As far as the ‘Tree’ logo and overall packaging are concerned, we again do not find the same to be sufficient to, at least at this stage where we are 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”, the Bench further observed.

Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar appeared for the appellant Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta appeared for the respondent.

The appeal was filed by Mountain Valley Springs India Private Limited, the company behind the luxury ayurvedic brand Forest Essentials, challenging a Single Judge’s order declining interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off suit.

The appellant argued that it has been using the mark “FOREST ESSENTIALS” since 2000 and its baby care range under variants such as “FOREST ESSENTIALS BABY” since 2006. It alleged that the respondent’s use of “BABY FOREST” for ayurvedic baby care products was deceptively similar and had led to actual consumer confusion.

The respondents, on the other hand, contended that their registered mark “BABY FOREST” is structurally, visually and phonetically distinct. They asserted that “FOREST” is a common dictionary word frequently used in the cosmetic and herbal industry and that the appellant’s registration covers the composite expression “FOREST ESSENTIALS,” not the word “FOREST” independently.

The Court further held that even applying the test of an average purchaser of imperfect recollection, the marks “FOREST ESSENTIALS” and “BABY FOREST” did not appear deceptively similar at the prima facie stage. Both were composite expressions with different structural arrangements and commercial impressions.

On the issue of logos and packaging, the appellant had argued that the respondents’ “Tree” device and overall trade dress were deceptively similar. However, the Bench found that, at least at the interim stage, the similarity in the tree motifs and packaging was not sufficient to satisfy the trinity test required for grant of injunction namely, a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff, and likelihood of irreparable injury.

The Court held that these elements had not been made out convincingly enough to justify restraining the respondents from using their mark pending trial.

The appellant had also relied on instances of alleged actual confusion, including emails and online search results. The Court observed that such material would require detailed evidentiary scrutiny at trial and could not decisively tilt the balance at the interlocutory stage.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents were permitted to continue using the mark “BABY FOREST” pending final adjudication of the suit. The Court clarified that all observations are prima facie and shall not influence the trial.

Cause Title: Mountain Valley Springs India Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Forest Ayurveda Private Limited (Formerly Known As M/S Landsmill Healthcare Private Limited) & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1756-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, Essenese Obhan, Neel Mason, Ayesha Guhathakurta and Urvika Aggarwal, Advocates.

Respondent: Jayant Mehta, Senior Advocate, Sundeep Chatterjee, Rohan Swarup, Tanya Arora, Aastha Verma, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment