The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark 'GLASS SKIN' from the Register of Trade Marks in Class 3, ruling that the term is descriptive of skincare and cosmetic products and lacks inherent distinctiveness. The decision, which came in a rectification petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited, signals a significant legal precedent for the medical aesthetics and beauty supply chain, particularly for distributors and importers who rely on generic or trend-based product names. The ruling underscores the importance of distinctiveness in trademark registration and may affect how similar descriptive terms are protected in the cosmetics industry.
Case background
Renee Cosmetics Private Limited, operating under the brand 'RENEE Cosmetics', filed a rectification petition challenging the registration of 'GLASS SKIN' in Class 3, which was granted to the respondent on a proposed-to-be-used basis in May 2019. The dispute escalated when Renee applied to register 'Renee Glass Skin SPF 50' in January 2025 and subsequently received a legal notice from the respondent alleging trademark infringement. Amazon later removed Renee's product listings in October 2025 based on the respondent's registered trademark rights, prompting Renee to seek cancellation of the mark.
Court analysis
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined whether 'GLASS SKIN' was descriptive or suggestive, referencing McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition. The court found that the term has been widely used in the beauty and skincare industry to describe a Korean beauty trend associated with transparent, luminous, and flawless skin. Evidence showed that multiple industry stakeholders, including Nykaa, Garnier, Nivea, Lakme, L'Oréal, and Mamaearth, as well as the respondent itself, had used the term descriptively to indicate product qualities and intended results.
Legal reasoning
The court rejected the respondent's argument that 'GLASS SKIN' was a suggestive mark requiring consumer imagination, stating it would be 'absurd' to suggest that consumers encountering the term on cosmetic products would not understand its intended purpose. The court also noted that no evidence was presented to show the mark had acquired secondary significance, which is necessary for descriptive marks to be protected. Consequently, the mark fell under the prohibition of Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it described the kind and intended purpose of the goods.
Decision and implications
The court allowed the rectification petition under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel and remove the registration within four weeks. This ruling reinforces that descriptive terms commonly used in the cosmetics industry cannot be monopolized through trademark registration unless they have acquired distinctiveness. For overseas buyers and distributors, this decision highlights the need to verify trademark registrations for generic or trend-based product names to avoid supply chain disruptions.
What buyers should watch
Importers and distributors should monitor how this ruling affects the use of 'GLASS SKIN' and similar descriptive terms in product labeling and marketing. The decision may encourage more companies to challenge weak trademarks, potentially leading to greater availability of generic product names. Buyers should also review their own product portfolios for any trademarks that could be considered descriptive, as such registrations may be vulnerable to cancellation. Additionally, the case underscores the importance of conducting thorough trademark searches before launching products in the Indian market.
Source: Read the original report | Published: June 05, 2026