Copyright in “Ingredients & Steps to Use” and Limits on Descriptive Trade Marks: Commentary on VISAGE BEAUTY AND HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. v. FREECIA PROFESSIONAL INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR.

Copyright in “Ingredients & Steps to Use” and Limits on Descriptive Trade Marks:
A Commentary on Visage Beauty and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Freecia Professional India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2025 DHC 10387)

I. Introduction

This Delhi High Court judgment, delivered by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora on 21 November 2025, addresses a modern and commercially important facet of intellectual property law: whether the textual content on cosmetic product packaging—specifically, the list of “ingredients” and “steps to use”—can attract copyright protection, and how such protection interplays with trade mark rights in a crowded, descriptive market.

The plaintiff, Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited, markets well-known “O3+” facial kits. The defendant, Freecia Professional India Private Limited, trading under the house mark “PROADS”, was alleged to have:

  • copied Visage’s registered trade marks D-TAN, DERMOMELAN and SHINE & GLOW, and
  • verbatim reproduced the plaintiff’s ingredients lists and steps to use on three competing facial kits.

The Court was seized of an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The defendant had filed a written statement but later stopped appearing, and was proceeded ex parte. Despite this, the Court considered the defendant’s pleadings in some detail.

This decision is noteworthy because it:

  • affirmatively recognises the copyrightability of textual content on cosmetic packaging (“ingredients” and “steps to use”);
  • clarifies the evidentiary burden for a defendant alleging that a mark is descriptive or common to trade and that certain wording is mere industry practice;
  • draws a careful line between protectable coined marks (such as DERMOMELAN) and descriptive/laudatory expressions (such as “shine & glowing skin”); and
  • illustrates how trademark and copyright remedies can overlap and reinforce each other at the interim stage.

II. Summary of the Judgment

Parties and Marks

Visage (plaintiff) asserted rights in three key trade marks used on its facial kits:

  • D-TAN – adopted in 2009, registered in Class 3 under No. 2065580 from 09.12.2010.
  • DERMOMELAN – adopted in 2008, registered in Class 3 under No. 1913811 from 01.04.2009.
  • SHINE & GLOW – adopted in 2011, registered in Class 44 under No. 2219460 from 13.10.2011.

The defendant, Freecia/PROADS, marketed:

  1. Proads Professional Bridal Facial Kit Radiant Smooth Glowing Skin;
  2. Proads Professional Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Enriched Glowing Skin; and
  3. Proads Professional Facial Kit Shine & Glowing Skin.

Visage alleged that these products copied:

  • its trade marks D-TAN, DERMOMELAN and SHINE & GLOW, and
  • the ingredients lists, steps to use, and overall layout/packaging from its O3+ facial kits:
    • O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Radiant & Glowing Skin,
    • O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Glowing Skin, and
    • O3+ Shine & Glow Kit.

Defendant’s Defences (as per Written Statement)

The defendant broadly argued that:

  • SHINE & GLOW, DERMOMELAN and D-TAN are laudatory/descriptive, not distinctive, and its own use is descriptive and protected by Sections 30(2)(a) and 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
  • These marks are common to trade and used by various third parties, so Visage cannot claim exclusivity.
  • Its own products have a different overall get-up, colour scheme, layout and presentation.
  • The ingredients and steps to use are mere standard industry practice and thus not protectable by copyright.

Court’s Key Findings

After examining the plaintiff’s materials and the defendant’s written statement (but in the defendant’s absence at hearing), the Court held:

  1. Ingredients and Steps to Use – Copyright Infringement
    For all three impugned products, the Court found prima facie that the defendant had substantially and often verbatim copied:
    • the plaintiff’s ingredients lists,
    • the plaintiff’s steps to use, and
    • the layout and placement of the product name and text on the front packaging.
    The defendant’s claim that these were mere standard industry descriptions was rejected for lack of credible evidence. Poor-quality images of other products did not substantiate the plea.
  2. D-TAN – No Interim Ruling on Trade Mark Infringement
    The Court noted that a rectification petition was pending against the mark D-TAN, and that several third-party brands allegedly used “De-Tan” for de-tanning products. Whether “D-TAN” is descriptive/generic was held to require detailed consideration. The Court therefore:
    • refrained from giving any opinion on infringement of the D-TAN trade mark at this stage; but
    • still granted injunction in respect of the copied ingredients, steps, and layout (copyright grounds) for the relevant kit.
  3. DERMOMELAN – Trade Mark Infringement Established Prima Facie
    The defendant showed only a single instance of a foreign product, “Dermamelan treatment cream” by “Mesoestetic”, as alleged third-party use. A “cursory search” by the Court indicated that this product was foreign and its sale in India was uncertain. The Court held that:
    • One foreign third-party use does not prove that the word is “common to trade” or descriptive in India.
    • Visage is the registered proprietor of DERMOMELAN.
    • The defendant’s use of “DERMOMELAN” in its “steps to use” appeared as part of its slavish copying of the plaintiff’s packaging.
    The Court restrained the defendant from using the mark DERMOMELAN in any manner whatsoever, in addition to restraining copying of the text and layout.
  4. SHINE & GLOW – Descriptive Use Not Enjoined
    For the plaintiff’s mark SHINE & GLOW (registered in Class 44), the defendant’s product name “PROADS SHINE & GLOWING SKIN FACIAL KIT” was found:
    • distinct from the plaintiff’s word mark as a whole, and
    • the phrase “shine & glowing skin” was held to be descriptive of the product’s effect.
    The Court therefore held that the defendant’s use of “SHINE & GLOWING” in the product name did not infringe the plaintiff’s SHINE & GLOW trade mark. However, copyright protection in the layout/ingredients/steps was still enforced.
  5. Interim Injunction Granted
    The Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant, its agents, and related persons from:
    • copying or using:
      • Visage’s packaging layout, and
      • the descriptions of “ingredients” and “steps to use”
      as used on:
      • O3+ Shine & Glow Facial Kit,
      • O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Vitamin C Glowing Skin, and
      • O3+ Bridal Facial Kit Radiant and Glowing Skin,
      thereby protecting Visage’s copyright in its literary work on the packages; and
    • using the mark DERMOMELAN or any deceptively similar mark.
    The application for interim injunction was disposed of, and the main suit was directed to proceed before the Joint Registrar.

III. Detailed Analysis

A. Factual Background and Procedural Posture

Visage has built a substantial presence in the professional skincare and cosmetics market:

  • Significant sales figures:
    • D-TAN: over ₹18 crores in 2020–21;
    • DERMOMELAN: over ₹1 crore in 2021–22; and
    • SHINE & GLOW: over ₹9 crores in 2021–22.
  • More than ₹21 crores in advertising expenditure (2004–2021).
  • Promotional presence across magazines, online marketplaces, and social media.

The plaintiff discovered the defendant’s allegedly infringing products around August 2022. Despite initial appearance and filing of a written statement, the defendant ceased attending court after December 2024 and was proceeded ex parte in August 2025. The plaintiff later produced evidence that at least some impugned PROADS products remained available on the defendant’s official website as of September 2025.

Accordingly, the Court had:

  • an adversarial record in the form of written pleadings from both sides; but
  • only the plaintiff present for oral hearing at the interim stage.

This posture slightly changes the complexion of the order: while technically ex parte at hearing, the Court does engage with the defendant’s defences as pleaded, rather than granting a purely one-sided injunction.

B. Issues Before the Court

Broadly, the Court had to address the following questions at the interim stage:

  1. Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off:
    • Whether the defendant’s use of:
      • D-TAN (in “steps to use”),
      • DERMOMELAN (in “steps to use”), and
      • “SHINE & GLOWING SKIN” (in the product name)
      infringed Visage’s registered marks or amounted to passing off.
  2. Copyright Infringement:
    • Whether the ingredients lists, steps to use, and packaging layout on Visage’s products constitute protectable “literary works” and/or artistic works under the Copyright Act, 1957.
    • Whether the defendant’s packaging substantially copied these works.
  3. Defences of Descriptiveness, Common to Trade & Industry Practice:
    • Whether the marks in question were descriptive or laudatory and therefore not exclusively monopolizable.
    • Whether they were common to trade due to widespread third-party use.
    • Whether the text of “ingredients” and “steps to use” was merely standard industry practice (and hence not original or protectable).
  4. Interim Relief Standard:
    • Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, and whether the balance of convenience and danger of irreparable injury justified an interim injunction.

C. Core Legal Reasoning

1. Copyright in “Ingredients” and “Steps to Use”

The central doctrinal contribution of this judgment is its clear recognition that:

  • the manner of representation of ingredients and user instructions on packaging,
  • along with the layout (including placement of product name and other text),

constitutes original literary work (and in part artistic work) capable of copyright protection.

Key observations include:

  • Across multiple product comparisons, the Court finds the defendant’s ingredients lists and steps to use to be “substantially identical” and, in effect, verbatim copies of the plaintiff’s text.
  • The defendant’s use of the mark D-TAN and DERMOMELAN in the “steps to use” appears not as independent descriptive choice but clearly as a by-product of copy-pasting the plaintiff’s instructions.
  • The defendant’s plea that these are standard industry descriptions is rejected because:
    • the photos of alleged third-party products are of such poor quality that the Court cannot even read the text properly; and
    • no better evidence (such as high-resolution images, samples, or affidavits) is provided.

The Court therefore characterises the defendant’s act as “slavish imitation” of the plaintiff’s packaging, including its literary content. As a result, it grants a specific injunction restraining the defendant from copying:

  • the plaintiff’s layout of the packaging, and
  • the description of ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’

for each of the three relevant O3+ kits.

This is important because it:

  • extends protection beyond logos and artistic designs to the narrative and instructional content on labels; and
  • confirms that even in functional categories (ingredients, usage instructions), the specific expression, structure, and language can be protected, provided the plaintiff shows originality and copying of expression (as opposed to mere copying of underlying facts or ideas).

2. Trade Mark: DERMOMELAN – Coined Mark, not Descriptor

The Court treats DERMOMELAN as a strong mark:

  • The plaintiff adopted it in 2008 and holds a valid registration in Class 3 since 2009.
  • The defendant’s only evidence of third-party use is a single foreign product “Dermamelan treatment cream” by Mesoestetic.

Crucially, the Court:

  • conducts its own cursory internet search (judicial notice of readily accessible public facts) and finds:
    • the Mesoestetic “Dermamelan” product appears to be a foreign product; and
    • there is no clear evidence of its being sold in India.
  • emphasises that a single such instance is insufficient to show:
    • that the word is common to the trade; or
    • that it is a mere product descriptor.
  • notes that the defendant’s use of “DERMOMELAN” in its instructions appears to be simply a part of copying the plaintiff’s packaging verbatim, rather than the defendant’s own lexical choice.

On this basis, the Court concludes:

  • Visage is the registered proprietor of a protectable trade mark DERMOMELAN in India.
  • The defendant’s use of “DERMOMELAN” in relation to facial kits amounts to prima facie trade mark infringement.

Accordingly, the Court grants a clear and broad injunction restraining the defendant from:

  • “directly or indirectly dealing in any products/packaging/label bearing the mark ‘DERMOMELAN’ and/or from using any other mark that may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trade mark ‘DERMOMELAN’.”

3. Trade Mark: SHINE & GLOW – Descriptive Phrase with Limited Scope

By contrast, the Court is more cautious with SHINE & GLOW:

  • Visage’s registration in Class 44 covers services like beauty and personal care.
  • The defendant uses the phrase as part of the product name:
    “PROADS SHINE & GLOWING SKIN FACIAL KIT”.

The Court holds:

  • the defendant’s overall mark is distinct from the plaintiff’s mark viewed as a whole; and
  • the words “shine & glowing” in relation to a facial kit are descriptive of the desired outcome or effect of the product (shiny, glowing skin).

Therefore:

  • the defendant’s descriptive use of “SHINE & GLOWING SKIN” does not amount to trade mark infringement of Visage’s SHINE & GLOW mark; and
  • Visage is not granted an injunction that would effectively confer a monopoly over everyday descriptive expressions like “shine” and “glow” in the skincare context.

This aspect reflects the Court’s concern not to over-extend trade mark protection to phrases which are:

  • directly descriptive or laudatory of the product’s quality, and
  • likely to be legitimately required by other traders to describe their own goods.

However, the refusal of trade mark relief in “SHINE & GLOW” does not affect the independent copyright claim. The defendant is still restrained from copying the plaintiff’s packaging layout and textual content for the Shine & Glow kit.

4. Trade Mark: D-TAN – Pending Rectification and Genericness Concerns

For D-TAN, the Court adopts a deliberately restrained stance:

  • It notes the existence of a rectification petition challenging the registration.
  • The defendant’s written statement refers to several third-party brands (including reputed ones) using “De-Tan” for tan-removal products.

Without evaluating the full evidence at this interim stage, the Court observes that whether “D-TAN” is:

  • descriptive (indicating de-tanning function), or
  • generic (commonly used for such products),

is a complex issue requiring detailed consideration. As a result:

  • The Court declines to rule on trade mark infringement relating to “D-TAN” at the interim stage and expressly states that nothing in the order should be taken as an opinion on this question.
  • Nevertheless, the injunction is still granted against the defendant’s copied layout, ingredients and steps to use on the corresponding bridal facial kit, under copyright law.

This nuanced approach underscores that:

  • a trade mark claim can be weak or contested (particularly for potentially descriptive terms); yet
  • the same packaging may still be strongly protected via copyright, where actual copying of expressive content is established.

5. Rejection of “Common to Trade” & “Industry Practice” Defences

Two related defences were addressed:

  1. Common to Trade (Third-Party Use)
    The defendant asserted that Visage’s marks are common to the trade due to third-party use, and thus cannot be monopolised. The Court, following the plaintiff’s argument, effectively applies an evidentiary standard requiring:
    • evidence of substantial use by third parties,
    • details of their extent of trade, area of operation, period of operation, and sales figures, and
    • supporting documents such as invoices, records, or clear images.
    The Court finds these elements missing in the defendant’s material, especially for DERMOMELAN. It also endorses the view that:
    • a plaintiff is not required to sue every minor infringer; and
    • the existence of other infringements does not justify or excuse the defendant’s own infringement.
  2. Industry Practice (Standard Instructions)
    The defendant’s contention that the “ingredients” and “steps to use” were standard industry practice is dealt with sceptically. The Court notes:
    • The third-party product photos are too unclear for any meaningful comparison.
    • No supplementary documents or high-resolution images are produced.
    As such, the defendant fails to discharge its evidentiary burden to show that:
    • the expression of those instructions was dictated by functional necessity or
    • so standardised as to be unoriginal and unprotectable.
    In the presence of near-verbatim similarity, the Court reasonably infers copying of original expression rather than mere convergence on a functional standard.

6. Interim Relief Standard Applied Implicitly

Although the judgment does not explicitly articulate the three classic limbs—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury—its reasoning clearly reflects them:

  • Prima facie case: Established by:
    • trade mark registrations in favour of the plaintiff (particularly DERMOMELAN),
    • substantially identical packaging text and layout, and
    • the defendant’s lack of credible rebuttal.
  • Balance of convenience: Favouring the plaintiff because:
    • the defendant’s products are cheaper and can divert customers by trading on plaintiff’s reputation;
    • the defendant has shown dishonest copying rather than independent adoption; and
    • the defendant failed to appear in hearings despite filing a defence.
  • Irreparable harm: Presumed in cases of:
    • trade mark infringement (particularly of a coined, registered mark like DERMOMELAN); and
    • copyright infringement of packaging text, where ongoing unauthorised use can dilute brand identity and cause market confusion and loss of goodwill.

Thus, the Court’s grant of interim injunction is consistent with the settled framework for IP-related interim relief.

IV. Precedential Context (Broader Jurisprudence)

The provided text of the judgment does not expressly cite earlier judicial precedents. Nonetheless, its reasoning is consistent with, and can be understood against, the backdrop of several established principles in Indian IP law:

1. Trade Mark Strength: Coined vs Descriptive Marks

Indian courts have long recognised a spectrum of mark distinctiveness:

  • Coined or fanciful marks (e.g., “DERMOMELAN”) are afforded the strongest protection because they are invented and have no pre-existing descriptive meaning.
  • Suggestive marks hint at qualities of the goods but still require some imagination to connect.
  • Descriptive or laudatory marks (e.g., “SHINE & GLOWING SKIN”) describe a quality, characteristic, or intended result of the goods/services and are granted narrower protection.
  • Generic terms cannot be monopolised at all.

The Court’s differing treatment of DERMOMELAN (strong, protectable) and SHINE & GLOW(ING) (descriptive, limited protection) fits comfortably into this framework.

2. Descriptive Use and Sections 30 & 35 of the Trade Marks Act

Section 30(2)(a) provides that use of a registered trade mark to indicate the kind, quality, intended purpose or other characteristics of goods or services is generally not infringement if such use is in accordance with honest practices. Section 35 protects use of one’s own name or address.

Here, although the Court does not explicitly cite these provisions, it effectively applies the descriptive use doctrine in holding that the defendant’s use of “shine & glowing skin” is:

  • descriptive of the intended effect of the facial kit, and
  • not an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered mark “SHINE & GLOW”.

3. Third-Party Use and “Common to Trade”

Indian courts have repeatedly held that a defendant who asserts that a mark is “common to trade” must produce substantive evidence, not mere assertions. This typically includes:

  • names and details of other traders using the mark,
  • duration and geographical extent of such use, and
  • proof of sales, advertising and market presence.

The insistence on evidence and the rejection of vague or unsupported “common to trade” claims in this case align with that principle. The Court’s refusal to treat a single foreign “Dermamelan” product as sufficient to weaken Visage’s DERMOMELAN mark is a concrete application of this evidentiary standard.

4. Copyright in Labels and Packaging

It is well recognised that labels, cartons, and packaging can attract copyright protection as:

  • artistic works (in respect of designs, logos, colour schemes, layout), and/or
  • literary works (in respect of the textual matter).

The present judgment extends and clarifies this by focusing specifically on:

  • ingredients lists, and
  • steps to use

— categories that might otherwise be mistaken for unprotectable facts or functional instructions. The Court’s finding of protection is premised on the originality of expression and the near-verbatim copying by the defendant, consistent with the idea–expression dichotomy in copyright law.

V. Impact and Significance

1. For Brand Owners in Cosmetics and FMCG Sectors

This judgment serves as a strong reminder that:

  • Businesses can and should treat their:
    • instructional text,
    • ingredients presentation, and
    • overall label layout
    as valuable intellectual property assets.
  • Well-documented evidence of:
    • trade mark registrations and their use,
    • sales figures, and
    • advertising expenditure
    significantly strengthens the case for interim relief.
  • Parallel claims in trade mark infringement, passing off, and copyright can be mutually reinforcing:
    • Even where a trade mark is vulnerable (e.g., descriptive or under rectification),
    • copyright in the label or packaging text can still be a powerful route to injunctive relief.

2. For Alleged Infringers and Competitors

The decision sends several clear messages:

  • Simply asserting that something is “standard industry practice” is insufficient:
    • Defendants must provide clear, legible comparators and cogent evidence to prove that the particular expression is standard or functionally dictated.
  • Copying entire text (ingredients, steps to use) and layout will almost certainly be seen as slavish imitation, pointing to dishonesty.
  • A defence that marks are common to trade requires substantial, reliable materials—not rough internet searches or indistinct photographs.
  • Non-appearance at the hearing, even after filing a written statement, leaves the defendant’s case vulnerable; the Court may justifiably proceed on a largely one-sided factual narrative.

3. For the Development of IP Doctrine

Doctrinally, the judgment:

  • clarifies the protective scope of copyright over:
    • packaging text that is partly functional,
    • provided there is originality in expression;
  • reinforces a nuanced approach to descriptiveness:
    • coined marks like DERMOMELAN receive full enforcement;
    • highly descriptive expressions like “shine & glowing skin” are not monopolised even if part of a registered mark;
  • illustrates judicial openness to using internet searches to test factual assertions (e.g., foreign products and their availability); and
  • demonstrates that courts will disaggregate relief:
    • granting trade mark injunction for one mark (DERMOMELAN),
    • withholding it for another (SHINE & GLOW),
    • and reserving judgment on a third (D-TAN),
    while still granting robust copyright protection across products.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Interim Injunction (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC)

An interim injunction is a temporary order granted at an early stage of litigation, to prevent harm while the case is pending. To get one, the plaintiff must show:

  1. Prima facie case – a credible basis for the claim, not necessarily proof beyond doubt.
  2. Balance of convenience – that the inconvenience or harm to the plaintiff if relief is denied is greater than the harm to the defendant if relief is granted.
  3. Irreparable injury – harm that cannot be adequately compensated in money or later undone.

2. Trade Mark Categories: Coined vs Descriptive

  • Coined/fanciful mark – an invented word (e.g., “DERMOMELAN”), enjoys strong protection.
  • Descriptive mark – directly describes characteristics or quality (e.g., “shine & glowing skin” for cosmetics). Protection is limited because other traders need to use such terms.
  • Generic term – the common name for goods/services (“soap”, “shampoo”). Not protectable.

3. “Common to Trade” Defence

A defendant may argue that a mark is “common to trade”—widely used by many traders—so no single trader should have exclusive rights in it. Courts require:

  • names and details of other users,
  • proof of how long and where they have used the mark, and
  • sales and advertising data.

Mere assertions or a handful of weakly supported examples are usually inadequate.

4. Copyright in Packaging: Literary vs Artistic Works

  • Artistic work – covers visual elements like logos, artwork, layout design.
  • Literary work – covers text, including wording, style, structure, and arrangement of content.

While facts (e.g., that a product contains Vitamin C) and ideas (e.g., that a product should be applied in steps) are not protected, the specific expression:

  • the exact wording, sequencing, and presentation of “ingredients” and “steps to use”

can be copyrighted. Copying this expression without permission is copyright infringement.

5. Descriptive Use under Trade Mark Law

Even if a word is registered as a trade mark, others may sometimes use it to describe their goods (kind, quality, intended purpose, etc.) in an honest commercial manner. For example:

  • Using “for glowing skin” on a facial kit to describe its effect.

This is the essence of the defence in Section 30(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, and is reflected in the Court’s acceptance of “shine & glowing skin” as descriptive.

VII. Conclusion

The decision in Visage Beauty and Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Freecia Professional India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. marks a significant reaffirmation and refinement of Indian IP law in the context of consumer products and cosmetics.

Its key contributions can be summarised as follows:

  • Copyright in Packaging Text: The Court affirms that “ingredients” and “steps to use” on cosmetic packaging, when expressed in an original manner and then verbatim copied, constitute protectable literary works. This expands the practical reach of copyright protection beyond logos and artistic designs to instructional and compositional text.
  • Careful Trade Mark Analysis: The Court:
    • strengthens protection for truly coined marks like DERMOMELAN,
    • recognises the descriptive character of expressions such as “shine & glowing skin” and refuses to over-extend trade mark monopolies, and
    • adopts a cautious, evidence-based approach to contested marks like D-TAN, particularly where genericness or descriptiveness is in issue.
  • Evidentiary Discipline: Vague claims of “common to trade” usage or “industry practice” are rejected in the absence of robust supporting evidence. The judgment emphasises that defendants must come prepared with concrete, legible, and credible material if they wish to rely on such defences.
  • Complementary IP Strategies: The case demonstrates that copyright and trade mark rights operate in tandem:
    • trade mark rights protect brand identifiers like DERMOMELAN, while
    • copyright protects the specific wording and layout of packaging,
    allowing brand owners to secure layered protection and effective interim relief.

Ultimately, this interim order underscores the Delhi High Court’s continued commitment to combating slavish imitation in the marketplace, while at the same time preserving the public’s right to use genuinely descriptive language in commerce. It will likely serve as a valuable precedent for future disputes concerning packaging, label text, and competing claims over descriptive branding in India’s fast-moving consumer markets.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Delhi High Court

Judge(s)

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Advocates

Comments