Introduction
The decision of the High Court of Delhi in Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited is an important development in Indian trademark and trade dress jurisprudence, particularly in relation to passing off actions involving consumer products sold in mass retail markets. The dispute revolved around the alleged imitation of the trade dress and overall packaging of Emami’s well-known “Navratna Oil” product by Dabur’s “Cool King Thanda Tael”. The Division Bench was required to examine whether the overall appearance, packaging style, colour combination and arrangement of features used by Dabur created a deceptive similarity capable of confusing ordinary consumers.
The judgement is significant because the court clarified that even where individual packaging elements are common to trade and incapable of exclusive monopoly, the overall combination and arrangement of those elements may still acquire distinctiveness and protection under the law of passing off. The court also did not give any benefit to the House Mark, and it held it was not enough to avoid passing off.
Factual And Procedural Background
Emami Limited claimed that it had launched “Navratna Oil” in January 1989 and had continuously used the product’s distinctive red trade dress for several decades. Emami asserted that the product had become one of the most recognised cooling oils in India and that it possessed a market share of approximately 66% in the cooling oil segment as of 2022. The company relied upon several trademark registrations, copyright registrations and registered bottle designs under the Designs Act, 2000. Emami also relied upon extensive sales figures, advertising expenditure and long-standing goodwill associated with the product.
According to Emami, Dabur launched its product “Cool King Thanda Tael” in 2023 using a deceptively similar trade dress containing similar red packaging, ice cubes, hibiscus flowers, Ayurvedic herbs, similar colour combinations and Hindi expressions such as “Raahat”, “Aaram” and “Tarotaazgi” appearing in the same sequence. Emami alleged that Dabur had deliberately copied the essential features of the Navratna Oil packaging to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s product.
The learned single judge of the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction against Dabur under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, restraining the sale of the impugned product in the contested trade dress. The Single Judge held that the overall get-up and visual impression created by Dabur’s packaging amounted to passing off. Dabur challenged the injunction before the Division Bench through FAO(OS)(COMM) 23/2026.
Key Facts At A Glance
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Emami Limited |
| Defendant | Dabur India Limited |
| Product Claimed | Navratna Oil |
| Impugned Product | Cool King Thanda Tael |
| Launch of Navratna Oil | January 1989 |
| Launch of Cool King Thanda Tael | 2023 |
| Nature of Action | Passing Off and Trade Dress Dispute |
| Interim Relief | Injunction Granted by Single Judge |
Dispute Before The Court
The central dispute before the Division Bench was whether Dabur’s packaging and trade dress for “Cool King Thanda Tael” were deceptively similar to Emami’s “Navratna Oil” so as to constitute passing off.
Arguments Raised By Dabur
- No monopoly could be granted over common elements such as red-coloured packaging, herbs, hibiscus flowers, ice cubes and descriptive words like “cool”, “thanda” or “cool oil”.
- Many third-party cooling oils in the market used similar packaging elements.
- Dabur prominently displayed its famous house mark “DABUR”, which was sufficient to distinguish the products and avoid consumer confusion.
- Emami had failed to establish distinctiveness and secondary meaning in the present packaging style, especially since the packaging had evolved over the years.
Arguments Raised By Emami
- The issue was not about monopoly over individual elements but about the deceptive imitation of the overall arrangement and visual appearance of the product.
- Dabur’s adoption of multiple similar features in combination clearly demonstrated dishonest intention to imitate the established trade dress of Navratna Oil.
- Emami relied upon its enormous sales turnover, extensive advertisements and long-standing market leadership in the cooling oil segment.
- The overall get-up, packaging and visual presentation created a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Core Issues For Determination
- Whether the trade dress of “Cool King Thanda Tael” was deceptively similar to “Navratna Oil”.
- Whether the overall combination of common packaging elements could acquire legal protection.
- Whether the presence of the house mark “DABUR” was sufficient to avoid passing off.
- Whether Emami had established goodwill, distinctiveness and likelihood of consumer confusion.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
The Division Bench clarified that Emami had confined its case only to passing off and was not pressing claims relating to trademark infringement, copyright infringement, bottle design infringement or monopoly over the red colour itself.
The court observed that in passing off actions, the focus is on similarities in overall get-up and packaging which create deception and confusion in the minds of consumers. The Bench emphasised that the plaintiff must establish that its trade dress has acquired distinctiveness and that the defendant’s product is similar enough to deceive consumers despite differences in individual details.
The Court accepted Emami’s evidence regarding substantial goodwill and reputation acquired through long use since 1989, extensive advertising and massive sales turnover. The Bench observed that Emami’s sales figures and market share were sufficient at the prima facie stage to establish goodwill in the cooling oil market. The Court also noted that Dabur had launched the impugned trade dress only in 2023 and had not explained the reason behind adopting such similar packaging features.
Important Precedents Discussed
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. – Deceptive similarity must be judged from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. Side-by-side comparison is not necessary, and the overall impression is the governing test.
- Wander Ltd v. Antox India P. Ltd – Appellate courts should not lightly interfere with discretionary interim injunction orders unless findings are perverse or contrary to law.
- Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc. – Reaffirmed the classical trinity test for passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage.
- Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra – Discussed acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning. The Court distinguished the facts and held that Emami had produced sufficient material demonstrating goodwill and distinctiveness.
Court Findings on Trade Dress Similarity
A major aspect of the reasoning was the Court’s finding that although individual elements such as red colour, herbs or hibiscus flowers may be common to trade, the combination and arrangement of these features in Dabur’s packaging created an overall impression deceptively similar to Navratna Oil.
The court specifically noted similarities in:
- Colour scheme
- Bottle appearance
- Placement of flowers and herbs
- Yellow triangular “New” label
- Use of Hindi words
- Overall visual presentation
The Court rejected Dabur’s argument that the presence of the house mark “DABUR” was enough to eliminate confusion. The Bench observed that low-cost consumer products are often purchased casually by ordinary consumers with imperfect recollection and limited attention to detail. Therefore, the overall packaging and visual impression become more important than the house mark itself.
The court also emphasised that passing-off law protects the overall commercial impression of a product rather than isolated individual elements. It observed that the defendant appeared to have copied the essential features of Emami’s trade dress in a manner likely to confuse consumers and damage Emami’s goodwill.
Final Decision of the Court
The Division Bench dismissed Dabur’s appeal and upheld the interim injunction granted by the learned Single Judge. The Court held that Emami had successfully established a prima facie case of passing off and deceptive similarity. And That House Mark Is Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off.
The Bench concluded that Dabur’s trade dress was likely to cause confusion among ordinary consumers and appeared to be a deliberate attempt to imitate the essential features of Navratna Oil packaging. Accordingly, the restraint against Dabur from selling “Cool King Thanda Tael” in the impugned trade dress continued to remain operative.
Point of Law Settled in the Case
The judgement reinforces the principle that in passing off actions, courts must evaluate the overall commercial impression and visual appearance of competing products rather than dissecting individual packaging elements separately. Even where individual elements are common to trade, their unique combination and arrangement may acquire distinctiveness and legal protection.
The decision further clarifies that a well-known house mark alone may not always be sufficient to dispel confusion when the overall trade dress and packaging are deceptively similar. The Court also reaffirmed that consumer perception must be judged from the standpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, particularly in relation to low-cost retail products purchased in ordinary market conditions.
Case Details
| Particulars | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited |
| Date of Judgment | 22 May 2026 |
| Case Number | FAO(OS)(COMM) 23/2026 |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:DHC:4576-DB |
| Court | High Court of Delhi |
| Honourable Judges | Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora |
Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment
- Passing off actions focus on overall commercial impression.
- Trade dress protection extends to distinctive combinations of common elements.
- House marks may not always eliminate consumer confusion.
- Consumer perception is assessed from the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.
- Goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage remain the core requirements for passing off claims.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
