Likely To Mislead Consumers: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To EBC Publishing; Restrains Manufacturing Of Similar Flagship ‘Coat Pocket’ Edition Of Constitution

The High Court was considering an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking an interim and temporary injunction against the defendant.

The Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora held, “To an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the trade dress of the defendant’s impugned coat-pocket editions is likely to appear identical to that of the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions. Such a similarity is likely to mislead consumers regarding the source or origin of the said products.”

Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta represented the Plaintiff.

Factual Background

The suit pertained to the rights of the plaintiffs (Eastern Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and Eastern Book Company Pvt. Ltd.) in the distinctive trade dress, get-up, and overall presentation of their ‘COAT POCKET edition’ of the Bare Acts of the Constitution of India. The plaintiffs are a well-known entity in the field of law-related content publishing, and for over 75 years, have been recognised for creating authentic and reliable law-related content. It was claimed that since 2009, the plaintiffs have been publishing a COAT-POCKET edition of the bare act of the Constitution [coat-pocket editions] featuring a distinctive trade dress, including a signature ‘black-red’ colour combination, with a specific font style, gold leafing, and overall trade dress, on thin bible paper. The said trade dress has been incorporated in all the editions of the Constitution of India published to date.

The defendant, a private limited company, has been engaged in the business of publishing fiction and non-fiction books and novels of varied genres. In November 2024, the plaintiffs discovered that the defendant is publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, and selling a COAT-POCKET version of the defendant’s Constitution of India Bare Act [impugned coatpocket editions], through similar trade channels as those of the plaintiff’s, including online market places. It was claimed that the impugned coat-pocket editions bear striking similarity to the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions of bare acts. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had imitated the essential features of the trade dress being used by the plaintiffs, including the color scheme, title placement, font type, and gold leafing, which thereby showcased the defendant’s malafide intention to ride upon the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the plaint and comparison of the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions with the defendant’s impugned coat-pocket editions of the Constitution of India, the Bench found that the impugned trade dress/design was deceptively similar to the trade dress adopted by the plaintiffs. The defendant had adopted a similar colour scheme, text and font, gilt edging, book posteen colour, and embossed gold detailing.

“Considering that the plaintiffs and the defendant operate in the same line of business, utilize identical trade channels, and cater to the same class of customers, there exists a strong likelihood of confusion”, it said.

Reference was made to a tabular comparison presented by the plaintiff showing that the defendant had entirely copied the layout of the plaintiff’s product without any independent creativity. “To an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the trade dress of the defendant’s impugned coat-pocket editions is likely to appear identical to that of the plaintiffs’ coat-pocket editions. Such a similarity is likely to mislead consumers regarding the source or origin of the said products”, it added.

Reference was also made to the judgment in Colgate Palmolive Company & Another v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. (2023), wherein it has been held that trade dress, which includes colour combination, layout, container shape, and overall design, enjoys strong protection against imitation, as it identifies the source of goods. Even if minor differences exist in style, graphics, or textures, longstanding use in the market gives the product a secondary meaning and reinforces its reputation and goodwill.

“In the overall conspectus, the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction against the defendant. This court is satisfied that if an interim injunction is not granted at this stage, irreparable harm/ injury would be caused to the plaintiffs. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs, and against the defendant”, it stated.

Thus, the Bench restrained the defendant from manufacturing, publishing, marketing, soliciting orders, directly or indirectly selling/offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any manner, the plaintiffs flagship ‘coat pocket’ edition of the bare acts of the Constitution of India in a trade dress similar to that used by the plaintiffs in the iconic red and black style. The matter has now been listed on February 25, 2026.

Cause Title: Ebc Publishing (P) Ltd & Anr. v. Rupa Publications India Private Limited ( Case No.: CS(COMM) 1034/2025)

Appearance

Plaintiff: Senior Advocates Jayant Mehta, Swati Sukumar, Advocates Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Garima Bajaj, Shagun Agarwal, Zeephan Ahmed, Ritik Raghuvanshi

Click here to read/download Order