Colour Combinations and Passing Off

Facts

Honasa Consumer Limited brought a suit against Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd., alleging that Cloud Wellness had unlawfully copied the packaging, colours, trade dress and overall get-up of its products, thus infringing Honasa’s copyright and passing off. Honasa is a company selling skin care, personal care, and baby products using a unique blend of colours and layouts for packaging—what it calls the “Subject Trade Dress”—since early 2020, especially under its trademark “The Derma Co.” The Subject Trade Dress was designed by Lucid Design India Pvt. Ltd. and registered on social media before product launch. Honasa claimed extensive market promotion and fame for its products, which are associated closely with the unique visual style of the packaging. The company noticed similar visual elements in Cloud Wellness’s “Dermatouch” branded skin care products and filed a cease and desist notice, which Cloud Wellness rejected. Honasa argued that the colour combinations, brand layout, and product descriptions are unique and that Cloud Wellness’s packaging, website, and use of colours are copies seeking to exploit Honasa’s market reputation.

Procedural Details

The lawsuit filed by Honasa included claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957, and passing off under common law principles. Honasa requested an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Cpc) to restrain Cloud Wellness from selling or marketing products using the allegedly copied trade dress until trial. The matter was contested at length, with parties presenting evidence, documents, online sales data, and expert submissions both on originality of the design and market presence. Both side’s counsels argued at length, including extensive reliance on legal precedents and evidentiary documents. The parties have been coexisting in the skincare market for about four years, and Honasa raised its complaint after noticing similar packaging in Cloud Wellness’s newer products, released from 2021 onwards.

Nature of Dispute

The heart of the dispute was whether Cloud Wellness’s packaging and use of colour combinations in its Dermatouch products amounted to copying Honasa’s distinctive trade dress, thus infringing copyright and amounting to passing off. Honasa argued its packaging was a creative, original artistic work per Section 13 of the Copyright Act and uniquely identified with its products in the market through prolonged use, extensive sales, and advertising. Honasa claimed that Cloud Wellness’s adoption of almost identical colour arrangements, label layouts, and website design were deliberate attempts to “hijack” its goodwill and confuse consumers. Cloud Wellness responded by arguing their own adoption was honest, colour combinations for skincare products were industry norms, and similar get-ups existed before Honasa’s in international and domestic markets. Cloud Wellness also challenged the originality and distinctiveness of Honasa’s design, claiming no exclusive right over simple two-colour arrangements, and asserted their larger sales and prior use of the same colour schemes.

Reasoning

The court started with the basic principles for granting interim injunctions: the plaintiff must demonstrate a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable injury. The reasoning emphasized that mere similarity in packaging is not enough—actual risk of confusion among buyers and proof of acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) must be shown.

The court noted that both companies have been selling products with similar two-tone colour panels but under distinct brand names, product compositions, and stated ingredients. The presence of the brand name “The Derma Co.” on Honasa products and “Dermatouch” on Cloud Wellness’s products was highlighted for being easily distinguishable by buyers. The judge found that skincare consumers are informed and ingredient-focused, with branding and formulation making more impact than colour alone. The comparison also showed that both businesses list product ingredients prominently, affecting purchasing decisions. Therefore, similarity in trade dress, without evidence that consumers equate only the packaging colours with the source, is not enough for confusion.

Justice Karia referenced a series of precedents from Indian and international courts, including Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health (2003), Marico Ltd. v. Zee Hygiene Products (2025), Kellogg Company v. Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai (1996), Himalaya Drug Co. v. Sbl Ltd. (2010), and more. Precedents set the tone that, especially for passing off, the plaintiff must show (i) goodwill in the get-up at the time defendant adopted it, (ii) misrepresentation by defendant, and (iii) likely damage to plaintiff’s business. Packaging alone rarely signals product origin unless it is proven to have acquired secondary meaning in the market. Monopoly over basic colour schemes and simple trade dress is disfavoured unless market reality shows exclusive association in consumers’ minds. Normal coexistence and the presence of clear brand names further lower risk of confusion. Professor Wadlow, Campbell Soup Co. v. Armour Co., and other foreign decisions were cited to explain that brand name—and not just packaging colour—matters most to consumers in differentiating products.

Decision

Justice Karia dismissed Honasa’s application for interim injunction. He found that Honasa had not established a prima facie case of distinctiveness or exclusive secondary meaning in the two-tone packaging at the relevant time. He also observed that the companies have coexisted for four years without actual confusion reported. The balance of convenience was held to favour Cloud Wellness, whose ongoing business would be seriously harmed by an injunction, while Honasa could be compensated monetarily if injury was found at trial. The judge concluded that originality of the trade dress, prior adoption, and distinctiveness are all issues needing a full trial with evidence, not summary determination at the interim stage. The question will be determined at trial, and until then, both companies may continue using their respective trade dresses.