Delhi High Court Refuses Relief to Cotton Bud Maker Against Perfume Brand Over 'TULIP' Trademark

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea filed by Suparshva Swabs India, the manufacturer of Tulips cotton buds and hygiene products, which sought to restrain a perfume company from using the mark “AGN TULIP.” A Division Bench of Justice Om Prakash Shukla and Justice C Hari Shankar upheld a 2023 order of the Commercial Court that had refused to grant an interim injunction to Suparshva Swabs. The High Court ruled that since both Suparshva Swabs and AGN International are registered proprietors of their respective trademarks, there was no scope for a trademark infringement claim. Suparshva Swabs India, a Delhi-based partnership firm, has been manufacturing cotton buds, swabs, and hygiene products under the “Tulips” brand since 1999. The company claimed that its mark is registered in multiple classes and enjoys reputation in India and abroad through continuous use. In 2021, Suparshva discovered that AGN International, a firm dealing in perfumes and cosmetics, was marketing perfumes under the mark “AGN TULIP.” Suparshva filed a suit seeking to restrain AGN from using the word “Tulip,” arguing that it could mislead consumers and dilute its goodwill. The Commercial Court refused to restrain the perfume brand, holding that “Tulip” is a generic term in the context of perfumes, as floral names are commonly used to describe fragrances. It also found that Suparshva Swabs primarily dealt in hygiene and cotton-based products, whereas AGN International sold perfumes, and that the two operated in distinct markets. The court further noted that AGN's registration for “AGN TULIP” dated back to February 2010, while Suparshva's registration for “Tulips” in Class 3 (cosmetics) was granted in November 2010, making AGN the prior registrant in the perfumes category. Upholding these findings, the court observed that, no action for trademark infringement can lie between two registered proprietors. It clarified that such disputes could only be addressed through a common law claim of passing off, which requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage. The Bench found that while Tulips had built a strong reputation for cotton buds and hygiene products, there was no evidence that this goodwill extended to perfumes or cosmetics before 2010. “The word “TULIP” has not been shown to have acquired such secondary meaning prior to 2010 in relation to perfumes or fragrances. The plaintiff's principal use was in relation to cotton buds, tissues and swabs. Though such products may be sold through overlapping trade channels within Class 3, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate consumer association of the word “TULIPS” with perfumes or fragrances prior to the defendants' adoption in 2010. In the absence of such proof, the goodwill required to sustain a passing off action remains unfulfilled.,” the Court said. The court also held that Tulips could not be regarded as a well-known trademark under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, since its reputation was confined to hygiene products and did not extend to perfumes or cosmetics. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the plea in appeal and upheld the Commercial Court's order refusing injunction. Case Title: Suparshva Swabs India v. AGN International & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1430 Case No.: FAO (COMM) 253/2023 For the Appellant: Advocates Sudarshan Bansal, Shivang Bansal, Amit Chanchal Jha, Shivendra Pratap Singh and Devansh Mishra. For the Respondent: Advocate Sandiv KaliaClick Here To Read/Download Judgment

Delhi High Court Refuses Relief to Cotton Bud Maker Against Perfume Brand Over 'TULIP' Trademark

Ayushi Shukla

Tags