Delhi High Court Finds No Similarity Between 'OPAL' and 'SHEOPAL'S' Mark, Denies Injunction to OPAL Cosmetics
The Delhi High Court has upheld a Commercial Court order refusing interim injunction to cosmetics brand OPAL, holding that its mark is not deceptively similar to “SHEOPAL'S,” a mark used by Sheopals Pvt. Ltd. (SPL), which also manufactures beauty and wellness products. Delivering judgment on November 26, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla...
The Delhi High Court has upheld a Commercial Court order refusing interim injunction to cosmetics brand OPAL, holding that its mark is not deceptively similar to “SHEOPAL'S,” a mark used by Sheopals Pvt. Ltd. (SPL), which also manufactures beauty and wellness products.
Delivering judgment on November 26, 2025, a Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection would not break the competing mark into “She” and “Opal” or associate it with OPAL.
Saurabh Gupta, proprietor of the trademark “OPAL” for gels, soaps and other cosmetic goods, claimed continuous use since 1992 and had opposed SPL's trademark applications filed in 2018 and 2022. SPL maintained that the mark “SHEOPAL'S” was derived from the name of its founder's father and had been used for its range of beauty and wellness products.
In 2024, Saurabh sued SPL for trademark infringement, alleging that the company's use of the SHEOPAL'S mark for cosmetics created a likelihood of confusion with OPAL. Although he initially secured an ex-parte injunction, it was later vacated by the Commercial Court. Both sides appealed.
The High Court held that the Commercial Court wrongly applied the anti-dissection rule and dominant part test, noting that OPAL is a single-word mark. “There was, therefore, no question of applying the anti-dissection or the dominant part test,” the Bench said.
Comparing the marks as a whole, the court found no deceptive similarity.
“When we compare the marks OPAL and SHEOPAL'S, we are unable to convince ourselves that there is any likelihood of confusion between them. The mere fact that OPAL happens to be a part of SHEOPAL'S is insufficient, to our mind, to cause confusion in the mind of the consumer.”, it said.
The Court acknowledged some phonetic resemblance but reiterated that phonetic similarity alone does not amount to infringement unless it is likely to confuse an average consumer.
The Court disagreed with the Commercial Court's finding that Saurabh had delayed or acquiesced, noting that his oppositions before the Trademark Registry negated any suggestion of consent. However, it concluded that the essential requirement that is likelihood of confusion, was not met.
While differing with several of the lower court's observations, the High Court ultimately agreed with its conclusion that no interim injunction could be granted. Saurabh's appeal seeking restoration of the injunction was dismissed, and SPL's cross-appeal was disposed of in light of the Bench's findings.
Case Title: Saurabh Gupta v. Sheopals Pvt Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1602
Case Number: FAO (COMM) 175/2025
For Appellant: Advocates Manav Kumar, Manoj Kumar Sahu with Saurabh Gupta
For Respondent: Senior Advocate CM Lall with Advocates SS Rana, Rima Majumdar, Kashish Vij, Aashi Nema, Annanya Mehan
Click Here To Read/Download Order