Introduction
In the competitive world of fast-moving consumer goods, particularly food products like rice, the visual appearance of packaging often matters more to consumers than the brand name printed on it. A consumer walking into a kirana store or wholesale market relies heavily on colour, design, imagery, and overall visual impression to identify and pick a product they have previously purchased.
This reality forms the bedrock of trade dress protection law in India, and the Delhi High Court’s judgement in GRM Foodkraft Pvt. Ltd v. KS Agro Impex is a significant recent addition to this body of law.
Background of the Case
Decided on 29th May 2026, this case deals with the question of whether a rice seller can protect the unique packaging of its product, even without a registered trademark, when a competitor launches a nearly identical-looking product in the market.
The Court’s answer is a resounding yes, provided the plaintiff can demonstrate:
- Goodwill
- Misrepresentation
- Damage
These are the three classic ingredients of a passing off action.
Key Legal Principles Highlighted by the Court
What makes this judgement particularly instructive is the court’s detailed analysis of:
- How the “overall impression” test works in practice;
- How the presence of a competitor’s own house mark does not automatically rescue it from a finding of deceptive similarity; and
- Why rice as a food product demands a lower threshold of deceptive similarity than many other products.
Core Issue Before the Delhi High Court
The central issue before the Delhi High Court was whether a rice seller can protect the distinctive packaging and trade dress of its product, even in the absence of a registered trademark, against a competitor marketing a product with a deceptively similar appearance.
The judgement reaffirms that trade dress protection extends beyond registered trademarks and that the overall visual identity of a product can acquire significant goodwill deserving legal protection under the law of passing off.
Quick Overview of the Judgment
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | GRM Foodkraft Pvt Ltd v. KS Agro Impex |
| Court | Delhi High Court |
| Date of Decision | 29th May 2026 |
| Subject Matter | Trade Dress Protection and Passing Off |
| Key Legal Test | Goodwill, Misrepresentation, and Damage |
| Product Involved | Rice Packaging |
| Major Finding | Distinctive packaging can be protected even without a registered trademark |
Factual And Procedural Background
The story of this dispute begins in 1974, when the predecessors of the plaintiff companies started a rice milling business called Garg Rice & General Mills in Panipat, Haryana. They set up their first milling plant between 1974 and 1979, initially selling only in the domestic market. A second plant followed in 1980, and by 1988 the business had expanded internationally, exporting basmati rice to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries.
Over the decades, the business grew substantially, and by 2024, Plaintiff No. 2 had a presence in more than 38 countries and was recognised as one of India’s leading basmati rice exporters.
Plaintiff No. 1 And Zarda King Brand Launch
Plaintiff No. 1, GRM Foodkraft Pvt Ltd, was incorporated on 7th July 2020 as a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No. 2, specifically to handle the domestic market. It adopted the house mark “10X” for its range of rice products.
In 2021, Plaintiff No. 1 launched Golden Sella Basmati Rice under the sub-brand “Zarda King”, using specially designed, distinctive packaging. This packaging featured:
- A green and gold colour scheme;
- Gold English lettering styled to resemble Urdu or Arabic script;
- The words “Zarda King” prominently placed in the centre in golden font
- Hanging lanterns and stars at the top in golden colour;
- A crescent moon with a star at the top centre;
- An image of a building resembling Arabic architecture with minarets; and
- A plate of pulao at the bottom.
The trademarks associated with this packaging were assigned to Plaintiff No. 1 by Mr Dhruv Kumar Singhal through assignment deeds dated 6th August 2023, following trademark applications filed on 4th November 2022.
Commercial Success Of The Product
The product achieved remarkable commercial success. From the time of its launch in October 2021 through financial year 2023-24, it generated cumulative sales exceeding Rs 86.16 crore. Promotional and marketing expenditure exceeded Rs 8 crores over this period.
Celebrities such as Salman Khan and Saina Nehwal endorsed the brand, and it was promoted through hoardings, YouTube videos, and listings on platforms like IndiaMart.
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Product | Golden Sella Basmati Rice (Zarda King) |
| Launch Date | October 2021 |
| Cumulative Sales | More than Rs 86.16 Crores |
| Marketing Expenditure | More than Rs 8 Crores |
| Celebrity Endorsements | Salman Khan and Saina Nehwal |
Discovery Of Allegedly Similar Packaging
In the first week of July 2024, Plaintiff No. 1 learned through trade channels that Defendant No. 1, KS Agro Impex, was also selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice.
When the product was procured from the market, it became apparent that the packaging of Defendant No. 1 was strikingly similar to that of the Plaintiffs. It used:
- A green and gold colour scheme;
- Gold lettering in English resembling Urdu or Arabic script;
- The word “Zarda” in a similar golden stylised font (but with the suffix “Special” added);
- Hanging lanterns and stars at the top in golden colour;
- The word “Zarda” written separately in Urdu or Arabic script, and
- An image of a pulao dish towards the lower portion of the pack.
Defendant No. 1 was established as a partnership firm in 2016 and claimed to be a reputed business entity selling over 50 varieties of rice under the brand “Double Chabi”, exporting to over 25 countries.
In July 2024, two of its partners applied for trademark registration of a label bearing “Double Chabi Zarda Special”. Defendant No. 2 was found to be the manufacturer and supplier of packaging material to Defendant No. 1.
Market Survey And Interim Injunction
After conducting an extensive market survey covering 208 persons across 7 cities comprising 109 street hawkers, 75 rice retailers, and 24 rice distributors, the plaintiffs filed the suit.
The survey revealed that:
- 81 percent of respondents were aware of the Plaintiffs’ packaging; and
- 85 per cent could identify it from a distance.
| Survey Category | Number of Respondents |
|---|---|
| Street Hawkers | 109 |
| Rice Retailers | 75 |
| Rice Distributors | 24 |
| Total Respondents | 208 |
On 1st August 2024, the Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants from selling, offering for sale, or advertising Golden Sella Basmati Rice in the impugned packaging while granting Defendant No. 1 the liberty to continue its business using a different and distinct packaging.
Defendant No. 1 subsequently filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking vacation of this ex parte order.
The Dispute
The core dispute before the Court was whether the packaging or trade dress adopted by Defendant No. 1 for its Golden Sella Basmati Rice was deceptively similar to the distinctive trade dress of the Plaintiffs and whether the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of passing off and copyright infringement warranting continuation of the interim injunction.
Plaintiffs’ Contentions
The Plaintiffs argued that Defendant No. 1 had dishonestly and deliberately copied almost every essential element of their unique packaging — the colour scheme, font style, the word Zarda, hanging lanterns and stars, Arabic architectural imagery, and pulao plate — with the intent to mislead consumers into believing that the Defendant’s product was associated with the Plaintiffs.
They contended that all three ingredients of passing off were clearly established:
- Goodwill and reputation;
- Misrepresentation; and
- Irreparable harm.
They emphasised that for edible products like rice, a lower threshold of deceptive similarity should apply and the relevant consumers include street hawkers, rice retailers, and distributors in Tier-II and Tier-III cities who may not be discerning buyers.
Defendant No. 1’s Contentions
Defendant No. 1 contested the claim on several grounds.
- It argued that individual elements of a trade dress such as colours, stars, lanterns, the crescent moon, a pulao image, or minarets cannot be monopolised by any party.
- It contended that the word “Zarda” is generic and descriptive, referring to a traditional sweet rice dish made from milk, saffron, sugar, and food colouring, and that the word originates from the Urdu word “Zard”, meaning yellow.
- Defendant No. 1 also argued that it had given a disclaimer in its trademark application stating it would not claim exclusive rights over the word “Zarda”.
- It further contended that its packaging was distinct from the Plaintiffs’ because it had a matte finish with white polka dots in the background.
- It prominently displayed the house mark “DOUBLE CHABI” in multiple places, including the foldable sides of the packaging.
- It had a prominent red colour strip at the bottom.
- It placed the pulao image in the centre rather than on the side.
- It argued that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove goodwill specifically in relation to the Zarda King sub-brand packaging and had merely shown overall sales figures for the 10X brand.
- It also argued that consumers buying rice in 30-kg bags are discerning consumers who would not be confused.
Comparison Of The Rival Contentions
| Plaintiffs’ Case | Defendant No. 1’s Case |
|---|---|
| Packaging has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill. | Individual packaging elements cannot be monopolised. |
| Defendant copied essential trade dress features. | Packaging contains several distinguishing features. |
| Use of similar packaging amounts to passing off. | Consumers are discerning and unlikely to be confused. |
| Zarda King packaging is well-known in the market. | The word “Zarda” is generic and descriptive. |
| The likelihood of consumer deception is high. | Prominent “DOUBLE CHABI” branding eliminates confusion. |
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Court approached the matter by first identifying the applicable legal framework for passing off before examining the facts in light of that framework.
Law of Passing Off: The Trinity Test
On the law of passing off, the Court reiterated the classic “trinity test” – goodwill and reputation, misrepresentation, and damage or injury – drawing from the House of Lords judgement in Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc., [1990] 1 WLR 491, and the Supreme Court’s judgement in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Another, (2002) 3 SCC 65.
From the Reckitt and Colman case, the court noted that a successful passing-off action requires that the plaintiff’s goods have acquired a reputation in the market and are known by some distinguishing feature and that the misrepresentation has deceived or is likely to deceive in a manner likely to cause damage to the plaintiff.
The Court also drew upon the Delhi High Court’s own judgement in Dabur India Limited v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3332, emphasising that no trader is entitled to represent his goods as being the goods of another and that any representation through marks, devices, colour combinations, or other means constitutes an invasion of proprietary rights.
Key Elements of Passing Off
- Goodwill and Reputation
- Misrepresentation
- Damage or Injury
Deceptive Similarity Analysis
On the question of deceptive similarity, the Court anchored itself firmly in the landmark Supreme Court decision in Parle Products (P) Ltd v. J.P. and Co., Mysore, (1972) 1 SCC 618.
From this case, the Court extracted the central principle that in determining whether one mark or piece of packaging is deceptively similar to another, it is the broad and essential features that must be considered, not a side-by-side comparison to hunt for differences.
The test is whether there is overall similarity sufficient to mislead a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
The court quoted the Supreme Court’s observation from Parle Products that if a person were not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the plaintiff’s packaging, he might easily mistake the defendant’s packaging for it some time after seeing the original, because an ordinary purchaser is not gifted with the powers of observation of Sherlock Holmes.
Similarities Found by the Court
Applying these principles, the Court conducted a detailed visual comparison of the rival packaging.
It found that the similarities were numerous and obvious:
- Green and gold colour scheme
- Gold English lettering styled to resemble Urdu or Arabic script
- The word “Zarda” in a similar font and style
- Hanging stars and lanterns at the top in golden colour
- The word “Zarda” separately inscribed in Urdu or Arabic script
- A plate of pulao in the lower portion
These similarities substantially outweighed the differences pointed out by Defendant No. 1.
Differences Acknowledged by the Court
- White polka dots on Defendant No. 1’s packaging
- Matte finish
- Different placement of the pulao image
- Red strip at the bottom
However, it held that the test is not to focus on dissimilarities but on similarities of essential elements and that even where dishonesty is apparent, the law requires paying greater attention to points of similarity.
In this context, the Court drew on the observation in Baker v. Master Printers Union of New Jersey, 47 USPQ 69, which has been widely quoted in Indian courts: the most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public and enough points of difference to confuse the courts.
Finding of “Smart Copying”
The Court found that Defendant No. 1 had engaged in precisely this kind of “smart copying”, a term the Court borrowed from Allied Blenders alias Distillers Private Limited v. Hermes Distillery Private Limited, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 217.
In the Allied Blenders case, the Court had observed that when broad similarities are so obvious at first look, the differences are nudged into oblivion and that a chart of differences showing extraordinary effort by the defendant actually highlights the similarities rather than diminishing them.
Whether “Zarda” Is a Generic or Descriptive Word
On the argument that the word “Zarda” is generic or descriptive and therefore no one can claim exclusivity over it, the court took a nuanced position.
It acknowledged that even if ‘Zarda’ is accepted to be generic or descriptive, this does not materially dilute the Plaintiffs’ case of passing off, because the claim is not merely about the word ‘Zarda’ but about the overall deceptive imitation of the entire trade dress, get-up, and visual presentation.
The court further observed that in the overall setting of the packaging, Zarda functions as a memorable component in consumer recollection and that the addition of the suffix “Special” by Defendant No. 1 is not sufficient to create any meaningful distinction in the mind of a consumer guided by overall impression.
The Court noted pointedly that this addition of “Special” was an unsuccessful attempt to create an illusion of distinction and avoid an action for dishonest copying and imitation.
Protection of Trade Dress and Colour Combination
The court was also unpersuaded by Defendant No. 1’s argument that it cannot claim a monopoly over individual elements like colours, stars, minarets, or lanterns.
Referring to the Delhi High Court’s judgement in Colgate Palmolive Company and Another v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 1005, the Court observed that while no party can have a monopoly over a particular colour, if there is substantial reproduction of a colour combination in similar order and proportion on packaging that has been imprinted on consumers’ minds, it is liable to cause confusion and dilute distinctiveness.
The Court emphasised that it is the overall combination, arrangement, and ensemble of these elements taken together that acquires distinctiveness and deserves protection.
Goodwill and Reputation of Zarda King
On the question of goodwill and reputation, the Court rejected Defendant No. 1’s contention that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove goodwill specifically in relation to the Zarda King packaging.
It found that the Plaintiffs had placed on record sales turnover documents, GST invoices for printing the laminated packaging in question, CA certificates, sales invoices, photographs of hoardings and billboards, social media promotions, YouTube campaign screenshots, and IndiaMart listings, all specifically linked to the 10X Zarda King brand.
The court held that sales worth approximately Rs 90 crores in three years cannot be regarded as nominal for a fast-moving consumer food product like rice and are sufficient to support a prima facie inference of goodwill and distinctiveness in the trade dress.
Evidence Relied Upon by the Plaintiffs
- Sales turnover documents
- GST invoices
- CA certificates
- Sales invoices
- Billboards and hoardings
- Social media promotions
- YouTube campaign screenshots
- IndiaMart listings
Whether the “DOUBLE CHABI” House Mark Eliminates Confusion
On the critical question of whether the prominent display of Defendant No. 1’s house mark “DOUBLE CHABI” on its packaging was sufficient to dispel consumer confusion, the court gave a clear and emphatic answer in the negative.
It drew upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, (2001) 5 SCC 73, which emphasised that the relevant consumer is a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
The Court observed that for rice, which is a fast-moving consumer good sold from retail shelves, kirana stores, and wholesale counters, buying decisions are predominantly driven by visual recognition of packaging – colour scheme, layout, and general trade dress – rather than careful scrutiny of brand names or house marks.
In such an environment, the presence of DOUBLE CHABI is not sufficient to dispel consumer confusion.
Supporting Precedents Relied Upon
| Case | Principle Applied |
|---|---|
| Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited (2026) | A house mark alone may not remove confusion caused by similar trade dress. |
| Cadbury India Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products | Passing off can occur despite different brand names. |
| Allied Blenders v. Agribiotech Industries | Overall arrangement and presentation determine deceptive similarity. |
| Mondelez India Foods v. Neeraj Food Products | Copying essential features of packaging can constitute passing off. |
| Marico Limited v. Mukesh Kumar | Trade dress can acquire exclusivity as a whole. |
Food Products and Lower Threshold of Confusion
For food products specifically, the Court applied the principle from Dominos IP Holder LLC and Another v. Dominick Pizza and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6135; Ferrero SPA and Others v. M.B. Enterprises, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5105; and Capital Foods Private Limited v. Sankalp Recreation Private Limited and Others, MANU/DEOR/75775/2025, that greater sensitivity is required and the threshold of deceptive similarity is far lower for edible products.
Initial Interest Confusion
The Court also applied the initial interest confusion test drawn from the Division Bench judgement in Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784, noting that given the deceptive similarity in the rival packaging, a consumer may initially be drawn to Defendant No. 1’s product in the mistaken belief that it has some association with the Plaintiffs, and this constitutes actionable confusion.
Damage in Passing Off Actions
On the third ingredient of passing off – damage – the court held that once goodwill and misrepresentation are established, damage is ordinarily presumed.
The mere existence of an identically packaged competing product for an identical product – Golden Sella Basmati Rice – sold through common trade channels to a common consumer base is sufficient to indicate the likelihood of injury to the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.
Common to Trade Defence Rejected
Finally, on the common to trade argument based on third-party use of the word Zarda, the Court found no merit in it.
It observed that none of the documents filed by Defendant No. 1 showed any third party using the word ‘Zarda’ with packaging deceptively similar to that of the instant case with the same colour combination and elements.
Drawing from Marico Limited (supra), the Court held that to establish the plea of common use, the use by other persons must be shown to be substantial and capable of affecting distinctiveness, and the Plaintiffs are not required to pursue every insignificant infringer.
Final Decision of the Court
The Court held that the Plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for continuing the ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 1st August 2024. The balance of convenience lay in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, particularly since the injunction had already been in operation for almost two years. Vacating it would cause irreparable harm and injury to the Plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the injunction was confirmed and made operative till the disposal of the suit. The defendants and all persons acting on their behalf were restrained from the following:
- Selling Golden Sella Basmati Rice in the impugned trade dress or packaging;
- Offering for sale Golden Sella Basmati Rice in the impugned trade dress or packaging; and
- Advertising Golden Sella Basmati Rice in the impugned trade dress or packaging.
The Court found that the impugned packaging was confusingly and deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trade dress or packaging.
Clarification Regarding Defendant Business Operations
However, it was expressly clarified that Defendant No. 1 is not precluded from carrying on its business for Golden Sella Basmati Rice using a different trade dress or packaging that is distinct and not deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s packaging.
It was also clarified that the packaging proposals offered by Defendant No. 1 during the course of the hearing cannot be used, as those too were found to be deceptively similar.
Point of Law Settled
This judgement settles and reinforces several important principles of passing off law in the Indian context.
Overall Impression Test in Trade Dress Cases
The overall impression test applies to trade dress just as firmly as it applies to trademarks, and what matters is not whether the packaging is identical but whether, taken as a whole, it is likely to deceive a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
House Mark Does Not Necessarily Eliminate Confusion
The presence of a competitor’s house mark on its packaging, even a well-known one, does not by itself dispel consumer confusion when the overall trade dress is substantially similar to that of the plaintiff.
Deceptive Similarity for Fast-Moving Consumer Goods
For fast-moving consumer goods, particularly food products like rice, where visual impression dominates purchase decisions and consumers include those with varying literacy levels, a lower threshold of deceptive similarity applies.
Smart Copying Remains Copying
A party who copies all essential features of a trade dress cannot escape liability by making minor cosmetic differences, as this constitutes “smart copying”, which is still copying.
Establishing Goodwill in Trade Dress
Goodwill in a trade dress can be established even within a relatively short period through substantial sales, promotional expenditure, and celebrity endorsements without necessarily requiring decades of use.
Generic or Descriptive Elements Not Decisive
The word or element claimed to be generic or descriptive does not dilute the overall passing off claim if the gravamen of the action is the deceptive imitation of the entire trade dress rather than any single word.
Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment
| Legal Principle | Court’s Finding |
|---|---|
| Overall Impression Test | Trade dress must be assessed as a whole and not by comparing individual elements. |
| Use of House Mark | A well-known house mark does not automatically remove the likelihood of confusion. |
| Consumer Goods Standard | A lower threshold of deceptive similarity applies to everyday consumer products. |
| Smart Copying | Minor differences cannot save a defendant who copies essential features. |
| Proof of Goodwill | Substantial sales, promotion, and endorsements can establish goodwill within a short period. |
| Generic Elements | Passing off can succeed despite generic words if the overall trade dress is deceptively imitated. |
Case Details
| Case Title | GRM Foodkraft Pvt. Ltd and Another Vs. KS Agro Impex and Another |
|---|---|
| Date of Order | 29th May 2026 |
| Case Number | CS(COMM) 637/2024 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:4851 |
| Name of Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Name of the Honourable Judge | Hon’ble Ms Justice Jyoti Singh |
Disclaimer: Images used herein do not reflect actual images used in the judgement, and the same are for illustrative purposes only. Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
