On June 19, 2026, the case Honasa Consumer Ltd. v. Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023) was adjudicated by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The petition requested the Court to strike ‘D-TAN’ from the Trade Marks Register according to Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court determined that the term describes the product and is not subject to ownership by any single company.
Visage Beauty submitted an application to register the trademark ‘D-TAN’ in Class 3 (cosmetics) on December 9, 2010, asserting that it had been using the mark since December 2009. The registration for the mark was granted on January 30, 2018. Honasa introduced its AQUALOGICA product line in 2021. On April 14, 2023, Visage issued a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that ‘AQUALOGICA DETAN + DEWY SUNSCREEN’ violated its trademark rights. In response, Honasa argued that ‘D-TAN’ is a common descriptive term within the industry referring to the removal of tan and subsequently filed a petition.
The Arguments
Honasa said ‘D-TAN’ is descriptive, devoid of distinctive character and common to trade, and that other brands use ‘DETAN’ in the same way. It also pointed out that Visage’s own packaging prominently shows another brand name, with ‘D-TAN’ used only as a descriptor.
Visage said it coined the mark in 2009, that it has no dictionary meaning, and that it is catchy and unique. It said its sales rose from about Rs 13 lakh in 2009-10 to about Rs 51.8 crore in 2023-24 and that it had taken action against infringers, with 23 parties giving undertakings. It also argued that the Registry had already examined the mark and that Honasa had itself applied for ‘AQUALOGICA DETAN + DEWY SUNSCREEN’.
What the Court held
- No answer to the Registry: When the Registry objected in 2012 that the mark lacked distinctive character, the reply gave no answer to that objection. The Court held that Visage could not have got the mark registered.
- Descriptive: Using dictionary meanings, the Court read ‘de’ as ‘removal’ or ‘reversal’ and ‘tan’ as tanned skin. In skincare, ‘D-TAN’ or ‘DETAN’ simply describes a product that removes tan.
- Common to trade: The Court saw other manufacturers using ‘DETAN’ or ‘D-TAN’ in the same way, so the mark cannot tell one company’s goods from another’s.
- Visage’s own use: Its products show another brand name prominently, with ‘D-TAN’ in small print beside words like BLUEBERRY, CRANBERRY and OXY. That looked more like describing the goods than naming a brand.
- Sales are not enough: The Court accepted that the chartered accountant certificates show commercial success. But they do not show that the public links ‘D-TAN’ to Visage alone, and Visage filed nothing else.
- Honasa could bring the petition: The cease-and-desist notice demanded that Honasa stop using the term, so it was an “aggrieved person” under Section 57.
The outcome
The Court allowed the petition and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel the registration of ‘D-TAN’ (application no. 2065580, Class 3) and remove it from the Register within four weeks.
- Fact-based. The Court said its analysis is purely fact-based and did not go into the case law the parties cited.
- Cancellation only. The order cancels the registration. It does not decide whether Honasa’s product infringed anything.
- Success has limits. Large sales and years of use can help a descriptive mark, but only if the public comes to see the mark as pointing to one company.
- Honest wording matters. The Court noted that Visage relied on honest concurrent use under Section 12 of the Act. It called this an “Achilles heel,” since it suggested others could use similar marks too.
So, can a skincare brand own the word ‘D-TAN’? Not this time. The Court held that a word which simply says what a product does stays free for everyone in the trade to use, unless the owner can show that the public has come to link it with one company.
This post is commentary on a published judgment and is not legal advice.
Case Details
- Case Number: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 215/2023 & I.A. 18072/2023
- Date of Judgment: June 19, 2026
- Citation: C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)-215/2023, 2026:DHC:5148
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Bench
- Judge: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Parties
- Petitioner: Honasa Consumer Ltd.
- Respondents: Visage Beauty and Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (R-1) and the Registrar of Trade Marks (R-2)