INDIA: Defendant Fails to Establish Prior Use in Dispute Over Common Name NEHA

The Delhi High Court has adjudicated a consolidated trademark dispute concerning the use of the common Indian forename NEHA in the personal care industry. 

In Sahni Cosmetics v. Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. [C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 355/2021, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 455/2022, and CS(COMM) 207/2023], Neha Herbals Pvt. Ltd. and its director Vikas Gupta (the plaintiff) claimed adoption and continuous use of the mark NEHA since 1992 in connection with mehandi, henna, and herbal cosmetic products. The business was initially conducted through a proprietorship, M/s Neha Enterprises, and later assigned to the plaintiff company. The plaintiff relied on registered trademarks, promotional materials, packaging samples, turnover data, and oral evidence to support its claim. It holds registrations for the word mark NEHA and the composite mark NEHA HERBALS in Class 3. 

Inder Raj Sahni, proprietor of M/s Sahni Cosmetics (the defendant), asserted that he adopted and used the mark NEHA as early as 1990 for creams and cosmetic products. The defendant filed two cancellation petitions against the plaintiff’s registrations, citing prior adoption, honest concurrent use, and nondistinctiveness of the mark. The defendant relied on manufacturing licenses, invoices, packaging material, and testimonies of distributors and suppliers. 

The plaintiff pointed out that the defendant had previously faced refusals and had abandoned multiple applications for NEHA. The defendant argued that NEHA is a common personal name and not inherently distinctive. He further questioned the plaintiff’s compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, citing the absence of manufacturing licenses in the earlier years. 

The court observed that though NEHA is a common Indian name, it may acquire distinctiveness through longstanding commercial use. Relying on Sections 28 and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, the Court affirmed that prior user rights, if established, override those of a registered proprietor. However, it found that the defendant’s evidence was insufficient to prove continuous and bona fide use from 1990. The court held that the plaintiff had successfully demonstrated use in a trademark sense supported by documentary and oral evidence. 

In a judgment dated May 19, 2025, the Delhi High Court disposed of all three matters by a common order, decreeing in favor of the plaintiff. 

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. Law & Practice updates are published without comment from INTA except where it has taken an official position.

© 2025 International Trademark Association