Delhi High Court: In a rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited challenging the registration of the trade mark “GLASS SKIN” in Class 3 in favour of the respondent, a Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that the impugned mark was “descriptive” of the goods in question and fell within the prohibition under Section 9(1)(b), Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed cancellation and removal of the registration of the mark “GLASS SKIN” from the Register of Trade Marks.
The Court held that the expression “GLASS SKIN”, used in relation to skincare and cosmetic products, directly conveyed the intended purpose and end result of the goods, and therefore lacked inherent distinctiveness. Observing that the mark had not acquired any secondary significance, the Court concluded that its registration was without sufficient cause and was wrongly remaining on the Register.
Also Read: Trademarks: Distinctiveness is an Exception of Descriptiveness | SCC Times
Background
The petitioner, Renee Cosmetics Private Limited, a cosmetics company incorporated in October 2019 and operating under the brand “RENEE Cosmetics”, filed a rectification petition challenging the registration of the trade mark “GLASS SKIN” in Class 3 in favour of the respondent. The respondent had applied for registration of the mark on a proposed-to-be-used basis on 2 May 2019 and subsequently obtained registration. The dispute arose when the petitioner applied for registration of the mark “Renee Glass Skin SPF 50” in January 2025 and was thereafter served with a legal notice by the respondent alleging trade mark infringement. Contesting the claim, the petitioner asserted that the expression “GLASS SKIN” is descriptive of a skincare trend and lacks distinctiveness, rendering it incapable of exclusive appropriation. The controversy escalated when Amazon removed the petitioner’s product listings in October 2025 on the basis of the respondent’s registered trade mark rights. Aggrieved by the respondent’s assertion of exclusivity over the term “GLASS SKIN” and the consequent impact on its business operations, the petitioner has thus approached the Court seeking rectification and cancellation of the impugned trade mark registration.
Analysis
The Delhi High Court observed that the controversy in the present case centered on whether the mark “GLASS SKIN” was “descriptive” or “suggestive”. Referring to McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, the Court noted that while arbitrary and invented marks enjoy the highest degree of protection, descriptive marks are entitled to protection only upon acquiring secondary significance. Examining various articles, industry publications and material placed on record, the Court found that the expression “GLASS SKIN” has been widely used in the beauty and skincare industry to describe a Korean beauty trend associated with transparent, luminous and flawless skin. The Court further noted that not only several stakeholders in the cosmetics industry, including Nykaa, Garnier, Nivea, Lakme, L’Oréal and Mamaearth, but even the respondent itself had used the term in a descriptive manner to indicate the qualities, intended purpose and end result of skincare products.
Rejecting the respondent’s contention that “GLASS SKIN” was a suggestive mark requiring consumer imagination, the Court held that when used in relation to skincare and cosmetic products, the expression directly conveyed the intended purpose and result of the goods. The Court observed that it would be “absurd” to suggest that consumers encountering the term “GLASS SKIN” on cosmetic products would be unable to understand what the product sought to achieve. The Court also found that no material had been placed on record to establish that the mark had acquired secondary significance so as to justify registration of an otherwise descriptive expression. Consequently, the Court concluded that the mark fell within the prohibition contained in Section 9(1)(b), Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it described the kind and intended purpose of the goods.
Decision
Holding that the registration of the mark “GLASS SKIN” was without sufficient cause and was wrongly remaining on the Register of Trade Marks, the Court allowed the rectification petition under Section 57, Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Registrar of Trade Marks was directed to cancel and remove the registration of the mark “GLASS SKIN” granted to the respondent in Class 3 within 4 weeks. The petition was accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
Also Read: Del HC Orders Rectification of S.S. WHITE Trade Mark Registration | SCC Times
[Renee Cosmetics (P) Ltd. v. Rupali Sharma, C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 107 of 2025, decided on 5-6-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Aditya Gupta and Aakriti Bansal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC, Rajal Rai Dua, Divyangana, Rohan Sharma and Nishant Chopra, Himanshi Singh and Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
