Body Cupid (P) Ltd. v. VBRO Skincare (P) Ltd (2023 SCC OnLine Del 7962)

Court: High Court of Delhi (Single-Judge Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh).

Date of Judgment: December 13, 2023.

Parties: Plaintiff: Body Cupid Pvt. Ltd. (owner of the brand “WOW Skin Science”), vs. Defendants: VBRO Skincare Ltd., two individual proprietors (Mr. Bipinbhai and Mr. Vimalbhai Dhorajiya), Herbocare Herbal Products, and e-commerce platforms (Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Acevector Ltd. (Snapdeal)).

Facts of the Case

This case is related to trademark infringement, where the Body Cupid Pvt. Ltd., which is trading as “WOW Skin Science” is a well-known cosmetics/toiletries company in India. The plaintiff has used the brand “WOW” and a distinctive logo on a wide range of personal care and health products, such as supplements, shampoos, body lotions, essential oils, etc., since 2014. It also claims a distinctive trade dress, which is a unique bottle/packaging layout and a dark brown–white–gold color scheme for its products. The “WOW” mark is a registered device mark (No.3075612, dated Oct 9, 2015) in various classes, and the plaintiff has design registrations for its bottle shape (Design No.318745 dated 14.6.2019) and label artwork (Copyright registration A-146655/2023) for its flagship shampoo. In 2022-23, the plaintiff’s “WOW” products earned annual sales of over ₹258 crore and were endorsed by celebrities, reflecting the mark’s goodwill.

The defendants are entities and individuals related to the cosmetics business. Defendant No.1 is VBRO Skincare Ltd.; Nos. 2–3 are the individual proprietors of VBRO Skincare Pvt. Ltd. and another company; No. 4 is a herbal product manufacturer; Nos. 5–7 are e-commerce platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart, and Snapdeal. The plaintiff discovered that defendants 1–4 were selling hair-care products on these e-commerce sites under the marks “VBRO” and “WQVV”, with packaging strikingly similar to the plaintiff’s “WOW” range. In particular, the accused products copied the trade dress, for example, get-up, layout, color combination, graphics, and even the way the word “WQVV” was styled, like it featured an elongated “W” to resemble “WOW”. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants’ “WQVV” mark and associated get-up were designed to confuse customers into thinking the products were from the same source as the “WOW” line. A side-by-side examination confirmed that the defendants’ bottles and labels are almost identical imitations of the plaintiff’s, differing only in swapping “WOW” to “WQVV” and adding small initials. The plaintiff, therefore, filed suit seeking an injunction, claiming trademark infringement, passing off, and infringement of its registered design and trade dress rights.

Issues Raised

The main legal issues in the case were:

• Trademark Infringement / Passing Off: Whether the defendants’ adoption of the mark “WQVV” and use of “VBRO” for hair-care products is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark “WOW” and thus likely to cause confusion?
  Closely related is whether defendants’ products, by imitating the overall look, including packaging color, shape, and layout of WOW products, amount to passing off the plaintiff’s goods.
• Trade Dress and Design Infringement: Whether the defendants have infringed the plaintiff’s rights in its distinctive trade dress and registered bottle design (No.318745)?
  The plaintiff specifically argued that the accused products copy ‘every aspect’ of the WOW packaging, making the imitation “res ipsa loquitur,” which essentially means the things speaks for itself.
• Injunction and Interim Relief: Whether an ex parte ad-interim injunction should be granted restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark and packaging? And whether e-commerce platforms should be ordered to remove the infringing listings?
  In addition to this raises the issue of the platforms’ liability under Section 79 of the IT Act and trade remedies.

Arguments of the Parties

• Plaintiff’s case: The plaintiff’s advocates, Mr. Dhruv Anand and Ms. Udita Patro, emphasized the striking similarity between the competing products. They presented physical samples and noted that the containers, color scheme green, white, yellow for Lahori Zeera in another case, but here dark brown/white/gold, fonts, and even descriptive text on the defendants’ bottles were virtually indistinguishable from the plaintiff’s.. Counsel pointed out that the defendants had copied the unique design of the plaintiff’s shampoo bottle, which is registered under design No.318745, and simply replaced “WOW” with “WQVV” while maintaining an elongated “W” to mimic the original mark. The plaintiff argued this amounted to deliberate infringement: the accused containers are “almost complete imitations” of the WOW bottles, a textbook case of res ipsa loquitur in trademark law. They asserted that consumers browsing on Amazon/Flipkart/Snapdeal were likely to be deceived into thinking the VBRO/WQVV products were genuine WOW products or endorsed by WOW Skin Science. The plaintiff asked for an immediate injunction to prevent irreparable harm both to its own goodwill and to consumers because the defendants’ products were already being sold nationally on e-commerce.
• Defendants’ case: The record does not show any contested defense arguments. There is no indication that the defendants filed a written response or appeared to oppose the injunction motion. The court’s order records counsel for the e-commerce platforms accepting notice, which is in Para 37. But it appears the substantive hearing was largely ex parte. In such cases, the burden was on the plaintiff to show a prima facie case, and the defendants did not file opposing evidence for the court’s consideration.

Judgment / Final Decision

Justice Prathiba M. Singh granted the plaintiff an ex parte ad-interim injunction. The court concluded that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff.

The final order provided:

• Injunction on Defendants 1–4: These defendants, VBRO and its affiliates, were restrained from using the mark “WQVV” or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to “WOW” including the logo/device form of WOW, for the manufacture or sale of any products. The order explicitly allowed the word “WOW” to be used in an ordinary descriptive sense, for instance, to express surprise, but barred all infringing uses. Moreover, Defendants 1–4 were prohibited from making or selling any personal care, cosmetic, or household products in any packaging, trade dress, color combination, get-up, layout, or container that substantially imitates the plaintiff’s trade dress, packaging, or container design. In effect, the defendants could no longer use the nearly identical bottle shapes or label designs that imitate the WOW products.
• Obligations on Defendants 5–7: The e-commerce platforms: Amazon, Flipkart, Snapdeal, were directed to take down the listings for the infringing VBRO/WQVV products specified in the plaint. They were given 72 hours after receipt of the order to remove the infringing entries from their websites.

No monetary relief was granted; the order was limited to injunctive measures. The injunction was subject to the usual requirement that the plaintiff later furnish security if so ordered by the court, not yet detailed in the interim order.

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

The court’s decision rested on the obviousness of the imitation and the resulting likelihood of confusion. Examining the physical products, the judge found the similarity “unmistakably clear” – a classic case of ‘res ipsa loquitur’ in trademark law. As the judgment notes, the containers and labeling of the defendants’ products are “almost complete imitations” of the plaintiff’s, such that a consumer seeing “WQVV” with the same layout would naturally think of “WOW”. In particular, the way “WQVV” was written with an elongated “W” easily misled consumers into believing it was a variant of “WOW,” and even the generic mark “VBRO” products had identical color and layout.

Given this high degree of similarity, the court had “no doubt” that the defendants’ products could be passed off as those of the plaintiff. Under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act and common law passing-off principles, even if no exact duplication of the mark occurred, the overall get-up and trade dress were so alike that confusion was inevitable. The court implicitly applied the standard of ‘likelihood of confusion’, finding that an average customer would be deceived by the overlapping trade channels e-commerce marketplaces and near-identical packaging.

On the preliminary injunction criteria, the court found all three components satisfied. There was a strong prima facie case: the plaintiff showed trademark registrations, for example, device mark No.3075612, and design registrations in its favor, and tangible proof of copying. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff because if the defendants were allowed to continue, irreparable damage could occur to the plaintiff’s brand and to consumers, especially since these are consumable/nonprescription products. The court noted that where food or cosmetic items are involved, courts must be especially cautious to prevent consumer harm, citing Yamini Manohar v. TKD Keerthi, a Supreme Court case, for the principle that urgent relief is warranted for look-alike goods. Indeed, the order was made through an urgent ex parte process, emphasizing the need to immediately check the deceptive products.

Finally, as a matter of equity and statutory duty, the court held the e-commerce platforms liable to assist in enforcing the injunction. Under the Information Technology Act and intermediary guidelines, these platforms were ordered to delist the identified products. The court thus placed responsibility on online sellers to curb intellectual property violations.

In summary, the ratio of the decision is that blatant imitation of a registered trademark and its associated trade dress will be enjoined without hesitation. The judge’s reasoning combined the “res ipsa” doctrine, blatant imitation needs no further proof, with the conventional tests for injunction: likelihood of confusion, balance of convenience, risk of irreparable harm.

Conclusions

In essence, the Delhi High Court’s order in Body Cupid v. VBRO Skincare demonstrates strict enforcement of trademark and trade-dress rights. The court showed no tolerance for the defendants’ copying, underscoring that a look-alike product sold under a deceptively similar packaging will be restrained to protect consumers and brand owners. The decision aligns with established precedents that view the seller of imitative cosmetics as intending to capitalize on the goodwill of the original brand, especially when the copying is blatant. The injunction should safeguard the plaintiff’s market and prevent further consumer confusion while the suit proceeds.

Notably, this case reinforces that e-commerce platforms must act promptly to respect intellectual property rights. The directive to Amazon, Flipkart, and Snapdeal to remove listings highlights the judiciary’s expectation that online marketplaces help stop infringement.

This summary is based on the interim order oral judgment of Justice Prathiba M. Singh. It is careful to note that no final determination on merits has been made, and the defendants could contest these findings at the final hearing. However, as the court observed, given the evidence before it, “the imitation is writ large”, and the plaintiff’s request for protection was granted as a matter of sound law and equity.

Reference(S):

1. SCC Online, Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Favour of WOW Marks, (Dec. 16, 2023), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/12/16/delhi-high-court-grants-injunction-in-favour-wow-marks-legal-news (last visited July 9, 2025).

2 Ajay Amitabh Suman, Res Ipsa Loquitur in Trademark Infringement, Legal Service India (2023),
https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-14550-res-ipsa-loquitur-in-trademark-infringement.html (last
visited July 9, 2025).
3 Legal Dictionary, Res Ipsa Loquitur, https://legaldictionary.net/res-ipsa-loquitur (last visited July 9, 2025).
4 id.

5 Information Technology Act, 2000, § 79, No. 21, Acts of Parliament, 2000 (India).
6 supra note 3.
7 supra note 2.
8 Body Cupid (P) Ltd. v. VBRO Skincare (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7962, ¶ 37.

11 Trademarks Act, 1999, § 29, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
12 Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815 (India).
13 supra note 3.
14 supra note 2.