Court Blocks Deceptive Use of Hair Color Brand Name

The Bombay High Court recently ruled in favor of Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited, the owner of the popular hair color brand STREAX, restraining an entity from using a trademark deemed 'deceptively similar' to STREAX. Here's a breakdown of the case:

The plaintiff, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited, has been using the STREAX trademark since July 1, 2002, while the defendant company adopted the trademark 'Streak Street' in 2018, which was found to be deceptively similar.

Justice Manish Pitale ruled that the defendant's mark 'Streak Street' could cause confusion among consumers, emphasizing the plaintiff's significant goodwill and reputation in the market with over ₹500 crores in sales turnover for the year 2023-24.

Key Findings:

• Dishonest Adoption: The court noted that the defendant's adoption of the impugned trademark appeared to be dishonest, aiming to ride on the plaintiff's goodwill.

  
  

• Descriptive Nature: The defendant argued that 'Streak' is descriptive of hair color products, but the court rejected this, stating that 'Streak' has multiple meanings and isn't limited to hair color.

  
  

• Estoppel: The court observed that the defendant had applied for registration of the impugned mark, which contradicts their claim of 'Streak' being descriptive.

  
  

• Injunction: The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark 'Streak Street' or any other mark similar to STREAX