Delhi High Court Holds 'Glass Skin' Descriptive, Orders Cancellation Of Trademark Registration.

The Delhi High Court on Friday ordered cancellation of the trademark registration for "GLASS SKIN," holding that the term is descriptive of cosmetic products and cannot remain on the Register of Trade Marks.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the judgment while allowing a petition filed by Renee Cosmetics Private Limited challenging the registration of the mark.

Holding that the registration could not be sustained, the curt observed, "the entry made in the Register of Trade Marks of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' of the respondent no. 1 is without sufficient cause and is an entry wrongly remaining on the Register."

The dispute arose after Renee Cosmetics applied on January 28, 2025 to register the mark "RENEE GLASS SKIN SPF 50". On March 20, 2025, the owner of the registered mark "GLASS SKIN" issued a legal notice alleging trademark infringement

Renee denied the allegation and contended that "GLASS SKIN" was a descriptive expression that could not be exclusively claimed by any one party.

Renee argued that "Glass Skin" originated as a Korean beauty trend around 2017 and had since become a commonly used expression in the cosmetics industry to describe luminous, clear, and translucent skin. It relied on material showing use of the term by several cosmetic brands and manufacturers.

The court examined articles and promotional material placed on record, including material from the respondent's own website. It noted that the respondent's website described glass skin as a Korean beauty technique used to achieve transparent and flawless skin. 

After considering the material, the Court held that "GLASS SKIN" was descriptive rather than suggestive.

Rejecting the argument that consumers would need imagination to understand the term, the Court observed, "It would be absurd to propound that the term 'GLASS SKIN' for a product which is a cosmetic for the purpose of skin care, would not be a “descriptive” term or would convey anything other than the intended purpose or the end result. In such a factual situation, the question of “imagination test” does not arise at all. If a consumer is confronted with the product related to cosmetics, which uses the terms 'GLASS SKIN', and also having regard to the fact that it is a worldwide fashion trend, in the opinion of this Court, it would be quite obvious as to what is the intended purpose and end result that the product would achieve. Thus, this contention too, is unmerited"

The respondent had argued that "GLASS SKIN" was a suggestive mark and therefore distinctive. The Court, however, concluded that the way the expression was used across the cosmetics industry, including by the respondent herself, showed that it was being used descriptively.

The court also found that no material had been placed on record to show that the mark had acquired secondary significance.

On this aspect, the Court held, "In the lack of such documentary evidence, it is well nigh impossible for this Court to uphold the registration of the mark 'GLASS SKIN' in favour of the respondent no.1."

The court further held that the mark described the goods and the purpose they were intended to serve, attracting the bar under Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act.

The court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to cancel registration certificate no. 2825917 dated May 2, 2019 and remove the mark from the Register of Trade Marks within four weeks.

The related trademark infringement suit has been listed before the Joint Registrar on October 13, 2026