The Delhi High Court division bench, in May, upheld interim restrictions on Dabur India Ltd’s hair oil packaging after finding that Dabur’s trade dress was deceptively similar to Emami’s product and was likely to mislead consumers, amounting to passing off.
Background: Emami markets a hair oil with a distinctive trade dress defined by its layout and colour scheme. Dabur launched a competing product with a packaging design closely resembling Emami’s, prompting Emami to pursue the case on allegations of passing off and protection of trade dress rights. The High Court had previously imposed curbs on Dabur’s packaging, and the division bench’s ruling in May sustained those restrictions.
Ruling and rationale: The court held that the trade dress elements, including the overall layout and colour palette, were substantially similar between Dabur’s and Emami’s products. The similarity was found likely to mislead ordinary consumers, supporting a finding of passing off and justifying the continued injunction against Dabur.
Implications for stakeholders
- Brand owners: Reinforces protection for distinctive packaging and trade dress and highlights the risk of adopting visuals closely resembling established brands.
- Manufacturers: Emphasises the need for clear differentiation in packaging to avoid passing off claims and injunctive relief.
- Retailers and investors: Signals regulatory risk in brand packaging and potential disruption if injunctions are extended or new actions arise.
- Regulators and policy makers: Demonstrates judicial approach to passing off claims tied to consumer confusion in consumer goods packaging.
Next steps
Dabur has challenged the Delhi High Court’s May ruling, pursuing relief through the appropriate appellate process. The outcome will determine whether the curbs on Dabur’s packaging remain in force and how packaging designs may be structured for both parties going forward.
Why this matters to taxpayers and markets
The case illustrates how intellectual property protection—specifically trade dress and passing off—can directly impact product launches, marketing strategies, and branding investments. For companies, the ruling reinforces the importance of distinct packaging to preserve brand identity and avoid injunctions. For regulators and courts, it underscores a focus on consumer protection in packaging, with potential implications for enforcement timeframes and remedies in IP disputes.
