Takedown ‘Glow and Handsome’ products from shelves in a month: Calcutta HC

Delhi: The Calcutta High Court recently issued an interim order prohibiting Hindustan Unilever (HUL) from using the mark "Glow and Handsome," which closely resembles the core feature of Emami's "Fair and Handsome" trademark [Emami v. Hindustan Unilever]. The order was published on the official website of the Bar and Bench. 

It also insisted that HUL remove all its ‘Glow and Handsome’ products from shelves in a month. 

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed in the order that HUL's decision was specifically chosen to mirror a key element of its competitor's product. Although the packaging of the two products differs, an average consumer might be misled due to the common use of the term "Handsome." This misrepresentation could potentially confuse or deceive customers and harm Emami's business and reputation, the Court noted.

Justice Kapur highlighted that by choosing the name "Glow and Handsome," HUL was taking unfair advantage of an essential element of Emami’s mark, leading to potential deception. The Court emphasised that all forms of free riding are unjust and can misrepresent goods as someone else's.

The judge concluded that Emami had established a strong prima facie case for passing off and that the "balance of convenience" strongly favored Emami. 

The Court was considering Emami's request for an injunction against HUL to prevent it from using the mark "Glow and Handsome" due to its similarity to Emami's product "Fair and Handsome." Emami argued that "Handsome" was a crucial and distinguishing aspect of its trademark, while HUL argued that the term was merely descriptive and widely used within the industry.

After hearing the arguments, the Court noted that Emami's mark had significant investment and was a valued asset. HUL could not provide evidence of other entities using the mark "Handsome" in connection with men's fairness creams.
The Court found that HUL had knowingly used the mark "Glow and Handsome," fully aware it was adopting a key feature of its competitor's trademark. HUL's application for registration of the mark had initially been denied and only accepted after 11 months.

The Court stated that HUL had a responsibility to ensure its new product name did not mislead or infringe on Emami's trademark. Consequently, the Court granted interim relief to Emami.

Senior Advocate Ranjan Bachawat, along with Advocates Debnath Ghosh, Sanjay Ginodia, Adreeka Pandey, Satyaki Mukherjee, and Mini Agarwal represented Emami. Senior Advocates SN Mookherjee and Ratnanko Banerji, along with Advocates Arunabho Deb, Soumabho Ghose, Deepan Kumar Sarkar, Ashika Daga, Arti Bhattacharyya, Jishnujit Roy, and Aayush Lakhotia, represented HUL.