Likely To Confuse Consumers: Delhi HC Restrains Dabur From Using Deceptively Similar Packaging to Emami Ayurvedic Hair Oil
Court notes copying of colour scheme, bottle shape, ice cubes, hibiscus visuals, even 270 ml quantity
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Emami Ltd., restraining Dabur India Ltd. from using an ayurvedic hair oil bottle and packaging found to be deceptively similar to Emami’s product. The Court held that Emami had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that continued use by Dabur would cause irreparable injury to Emami’s goodwill.
The Court held that the impugned Trade Dress is deceptively similar, as essential features of the plaintiff’s Trade Dress, the colour of the packaging, cap and liquid, bottle shape, the combination of red, white, yellow and gold, visuals of ice cubes, hibiscus flowers and ayurvedic herbs, and even the words “Raahat”, “Aaraam” and “Tarotaazgi” in the same order, along with the identical 270 ml quantity, were copied.
It was observed that such common elements are not coincidental, and the overall get-up at the point of sale gives the impression of imitation, exact identity is unnecessary if the overall idea or impression is likely to confuse a consumer of average intelligence with imperfect recollection.
Justice Tejas Karia thus observed, “The Plaintiff has prima facie established the goodwill by showing the consistent and uninterrupted use of the Plaintiff’s Product since 1989. Considering the sales turnover, it indicates that the Plaintiff has longstanding and formidable reputation. The Defendant’s Product was launched in 2023 and there is no dispute that the Plaintiff’s Product was well established in the market at the time of the launch of the Defendant’s Product. Therefore, the Defendant cannot deny the Plaintiff’s goodwill or attempt to have a free ride on the same”.
However, the bench also observed that “The Plaintiff cannot claim monopoly on red colour, herbs, hibiscus flower if they are considered individually. However, the distinctive combination, arrangement and presentation resulting in ensemble, which has been in use for a considerable long period has acquired secondary meaning in favour of the Plaintiff’s Product. Even though the individual components of the Plaintiff’s Trade Dress are common to the trade, the overall get-up of the Plaintiff’s Trade Dress requires protection”.
Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari appeared for the plaintiff and Senior Advocates Sandeep Sethi & Anirudh Bakhru appeared for the respondent.
In the present matter, Emami instituted the suit under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permanent injunction, damages, and ancillary reliefs, alleging that Dabur had adopted a confusingly similar trade dress, colour scheme, bottle shape, and label layout for its ayurvedic hair oil. The offences were alleged under Sections 27(2), 28, 29, and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
It further claimed proprietary rights in the overall get-up and trade dress of its product, asserting that the packaging had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through long-standing use, extensive sales, and substantial advertising expenditure.
However, Dabur opposing the injunction argued that the elements relied upon by Emami were generic and descriptive, common to the ayurvedic hair oil industry. Further that no monopoly could be claimed over colours, bottle shapes, or functional features and that there was no likelihood of confusion when the products were viewed as a whole.
The Court thus noting the packaging, found that Dabur’s packaging, when viewed from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, was likely to cause confusion and deception, particularly given that both products catered to the same consumer base and were sold through identical trade channels.
Therefore, applying the three-fold test for interim relief, the bench restrained Dabur from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in ayurvedic hair oil under the impugned packaging during the pendency of the suit.
The Court also clarified that the findings were prima facie and would not prejudice the final determination of the suit.
Cause Title: Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:785]
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior Advocate, Roohe Hina Dua, Harshit Khanduja & Vinayak Thakur, Advocates.
Respondent: Sandeep Sethi & Anirudh Bakhru, Senior Advocates, Kripa Pandit, Christopher Thomas & Pranjali Arya, Advocates.