Delhi HC Rules 'GLASS SKIN' Is Descriptive and Cannot Be Trademarked for Cosmetics

Kaustav Chowdhury
Jun 15
3 min read

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the term "GLASS SKIN" is descriptive and cannot function as a trademark for cosmetic products. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, hearing Renee Cosmetics Private Limited v Rupali Sharma and others, held that the expression merely describes a desired outcome of skincare products and is therefore barred from registration under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The ruling has significant implications for branding in the beauty industry. For more on how Indian courts have handled IP disputes, see Delhi High Court Holds Google Liable for Trademark Infringement in Hindware Keyword Ads Case.

Background of the Dispute

Renee Cosmetics, the plaintiff, launched a skincare line under the brand "GLASS SKIN" and filed a trademark application for the term. The company then discovered that Rupali Sharma and other defendants were selling competing skincare products using variations of "Glass Skin" on their packaging and marketing materials. Renee Cosmetics filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the mark, claiming that it had acquired distinctiveness through use and promotion.

The Court's Analysis Under Section 9(1)(b)

Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that a trademark shall not be registered if it consists exclusively of marks or indications which may serve in trade to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, or other characteristics of the goods. Justice Gedela examined whether "GLASS SKIN" falls within this prohibition. The court found that "glass skin" is a widely used term in the beauty and skincare industry, originating from the Korean beauty (K-beauty) trend, to describe skin that appears clear, luminous, and translucent. The court noted that the term is used by hundreds of brands worldwide and in countless beauty tutorials to describe a type of skin finish rather than to identify a specific brand. For the court's broader approach to IP distinctiveness, see How to Register a Trademark in India: Process, Classes, Fees and Timeline.

Descriptive vs Distinctive Marks

The judgment draws a clear line between descriptive and distinctive marks. A descriptive mark directly tells the consumer about the qualities or characteristics of the product. A distinctive mark, by contrast, serves as a source identifier, telling the consumer who made the product rather than what the product does. The court held that "GLASS SKIN" falls squarely in the descriptive category because it describes the visual effect that the cosmetic product claims to deliver. Allowing one trader to monopolise such a term would deprive other legitimate traders of the right to describe their products accurately.

Acquired Distinctiveness Rejected

Renee Cosmetics argued in the alternative that even if the mark was originally descriptive, it had acquired distinctiveness (also known as secondary meaning) through extensive use, advertising, and consumer recognition. The court rejected this argument, holding that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the consuming public associates "GLASS SKIN" exclusively with Renee Cosmetics rather than with the general category of skincare products promising a glass-like finish. The court noted that several other brands use the same term, which undermines any claim of exclusive association. For a related copyright dispute involving brand identity, see Delhi High Court Cancels Gujarat Pesticides Zoook Copyright Over Trademark Conflict.

Implications for the Cosmetics and FMCG Industry

This ruling reinforces the principle that commonly used descriptive terms in an industry cannot be appropriated as trademarks by a single player. The beauty and personal care industry frequently uses terms like "matte finish," "dewy glow," "sun-kissed," and "glass skin" to describe product attributes. The Delhi High Court's decision confirms that such terms remain available for all market participants. Companies seeking trademark protection for their cosmetics lines should focus on creating coined or fanciful marks that function as true source identifiers. For an earlier ruling on personality rights in branding, see Delhi HC Protects Personality Rights of boAt Co-Founder Aman Gupta.

Key Takeaways

First, the Delhi High Court has held that "GLASS SKIN" is a descriptive term under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and cannot be registered as a trademark for cosmetics. Second, descriptive terms that describe the quality, intended purpose, or characteristics of goods are not eligible for trademark protection unless they have acquired distinctiveness. Third, the court rejected the argument that the term had acquired secondary meaning, finding insufficient evidence of exclusive association with any single brand. Fourth, the ruling means that any cosmetics company can use the term "glass skin" to describe its products. Fifth, businesses in the beauty and FMCG sectors should invest in creating coined or fanciful brand names rather than attempting to monopolise descriptive industry terms.