{"id":24974,"date":"2026-06-01T05:44:00","date_gmt":"2026-06-01T05:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=24974"},"modified":"2026-06-01T05:57:34","modified_gmt":"2026-06-01T05:57:34","slug":"dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/","title":{"rendered":"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision of the High Court of Delhi in <em>Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited<\/em> 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\u2019s well-known \u201cNavratna Oil\u201d product by Dabur\u2019s \u201cCool King Thanda Tael\u201d. 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.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_85 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Factual_And_Procedural_Background\" >Factual And Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Key_Facts_At_A_Glance\" >Key Facts At A Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Dispute_Before_The_Court\" >Dispute Before The Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Arguments_Raised_By_Dabur\" >Arguments Raised By Dabur<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Arguments_Raised_By_Emami\" >Arguments Raised By Emami<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Core_Issues_For_Determination\" >Core Issues For Determination<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Important_Precedents_Discussed\" >Important Precedents Discussed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Court_Findings_on_Trade_Dress_Similarity\" >Court Findings on Trade Dress Similarity<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\" >Point of Law Settled in the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Judgment\" >Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_And_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual And Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Emami Limited claimed that it had launched \u201cNavratna Oil\u201d in January 1989 and had continuously used the product\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">According to Emami, Dabur launched its product \u201cCool King Thanda Tael\u201d 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 \u201cRaahat\u201d, \u201cAaram\u201d and \u201cTarotaazgi\u201d 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\u2019s product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s packaging amounted to passing off. Dabur challenged the injunction before the Division Bench through FAO(OS)(COMM) 23\/2026.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-facts-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Facts_At_A_Glance\"><\/span>Key Facts At A Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Plaintiff<\/td><td>Emami Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Defendant<\/td><td>Dabur India Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Product Claimed<\/td><td>Navratna Oil<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Impugned Product<\/td><td>Cool King Thanda Tael<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Launch of Navratna Oil<\/td><td>January 1989<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Launch of Cool King Thanda Tael<\/td><td>2023<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Nature of Action<\/td><td>Passing Off and Trade Dress Dispute<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Interim Relief<\/td><td>Injunction Granted by Single Judge<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-dispute-before-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute_Before_The_Court\"><\/span>Dispute Before The Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The central dispute before the Division Bench was whether Dabur\u2019s packaging and trade dress for \u201cCool King Thanda Tael\u201d were deceptively similar to Emami\u2019s \u201cNavratna Oil\u201d so as to constitute passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-arguments-raised-by-dabur\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_Raised_By_Dabur\"><\/span>Arguments Raised By Dabur<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>No monopoly could be granted over common elements such as red-coloured packaging, herbs, hibiscus flowers, ice cubes and descriptive words like \u201ccool\u201d, \u201cthanda\u201d or \u201ccool oil\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Many third-party cooling oils in the market used similar packaging elements.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dabur prominently displayed its famous house mark \u201cDABUR\u201d, which was sufficient to distinguish the products and avoid consumer confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Emami had failed to establish distinctiveness and secondary meaning in the present packaging style, especially since the packaging had evolved over the years.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-arguments-raised-by-emami\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Arguments_Raised_By_Emami\"><\/span>Arguments Raised By Emami<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The issue was not about monopoly over individual elements but about the deceptive imitation of the overall arrangement and visual appearance of the product.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dabur\u2019s adoption of multiple similar features in combination clearly demonstrated dishonest intention to imitate the established trade dress of Navratna Oil.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Emami relied upon its enormous sales turnover, extensive advertisements and long-standing market leadership in the cooling oil segment.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The overall get-up, packaging and visual presentation created a likelihood of consumer confusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-core-issues-for-determination\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Issues_For_Determination\"><\/span>Core Issues For Determination<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Whether the trade dress of \u201cCool King Thanda Tael\u201d was deceptively similar to \u201cNavratna Oil\u201d.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the overall combination of common packaging elements could acquire legal protection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether the presence of the house mark \u201cDABUR\u201d was sufficient to avoid passing off.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Whether Emami had established goodwill, distinctiveness and likelihood of consumer confusion.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s product is similar enough to deceive consumers despite differences in individual details.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court accepted Emami\u2019s evidence regarding substantial goodwill and reputation acquired through long use since 1989, extensive advertising and massive sales turnover. The Bench observed that Emami\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-important-precedents-discussed\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Important_Precedents_Discussed\"><\/span>Important Precedents Discussed<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.<\/strong> \u2013 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Wander Ltd v. Antox India P. Ltd<\/strong> \u2013 Appellate courts should not lightly interfere with discretionary interim injunction orders unless findings are perverse or contrary to law.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Reckitt &amp; Colman Products Ltd v. Borden Inc.<\/strong> \u2013 Reaffirmed the classical trinity test for passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/strong> \u2013 Discussed acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning. The Court distinguished the facts and held that Emami had produced sufficient material demonstrating goodwill and distinctiveness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-court-findings-on-trade-dress-similarity\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Court_Findings_on_Trade_Dress_Similarity\"><\/span>Court Findings on Trade Dress Similarity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A major aspect of the reasoning was the Court\u2019s 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\u2019s packaging created an overall impression deceptively similar to Navratna Oil.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court specifically noted similarities in:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Colour scheme<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Bottle appearance<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Placement of flowers and herbs<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Yellow triangular \u201cNew\u201d label<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Use of Hindi words<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Overall visual presentation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court rejected Dabur\u2019s argument that the presence of the house mark \u201cDABUR\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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\u2019s trade dress in a manner likely to confuse consumers and damage Emami\u2019s goodwill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Division Bench dismissed Dabur\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Bench concluded that Dabur\u2019s 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 \u201cCool King Thanda Tael\u201d in the impugned trade dress continued to remain operative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled-in-the-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled_in_the_Case\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled in the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td><td>Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date of Judgment<\/strong><\/td><td>22 May 2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td><td>FAO(OS)(COMM) 23\/2026<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Neutral Citation<\/strong><\/td><td>2026:DHC:4576-DB<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td><td>High Court of Delhi<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Honourable Judges<\/strong><\/td><td>Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-emerging-from-the-judgment\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Judgment\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Judgment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Passing off actions focus on overall commercial impression.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trade dress protection extends to distinctive combinations of common elements.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>House marks may not always eliminate consumer confusion.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Consumer perception is assessed from the viewpoint of an average consumer with imperfect recollection.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage remain the core requirements for passing off claims.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Written By:\u00a0Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, <\/strong>IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<br><strong>Disclaimer:\u00a0<\/strong>Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<br>\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>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<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":24973,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149,28],"class_list":["post-24974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property","tag-top-news"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.8) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Delhi High Court&#039;s Dabur vs Emami ruling explains trade dress protection, deceptive similarity, and why a house mark may not avoid passing off.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Delhi High Court&#039;s Dabur vs Emami ruling explains trade dress protection, deceptive similarity, and why a house mark may not avoid passing off.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-01T05:44:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-01T05:57:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/160518.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1170\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"658\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-01T05:44:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-01T05:57:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1573,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/160518.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\",\"Top News\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/\",\"name\":\"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/160518.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-01T05:44:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-01T05:57:34+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Delhi High Court's Dabur vs Emami ruling explains trade dress protection, deceptive similarity, and why a house mark may not avoid passing off.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/160518.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/160518.jpg\",\"width\":1170,\"height\":658,\"caption\":\"Dabur vs Emami trade dress case\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Delhi High Court's Dabur vs Emami ruling explains trade dress protection, deceptive similarity, and why a house mark may not avoid passing off.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off","og_description":"The Delhi High Court's Dabur vs Emami ruling explains trade dress protection, deceptive similarity, and why a house mark may not avoid passing off.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-06-01T05:44:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-01T05:57:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1170,"height":658,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/160518.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off","datePublished":"2026-06-01T05:44:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-01T05:57:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/"},"wordCount":1573,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/160518.jpg","keywords":["Intellectual Property","Top News"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/","name":"Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/160518.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-01T05:44:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-01T05:57:34+00:00","description":"The Delhi High Court's Dabur vs Emami ruling explains trade dress protection, deceptive similarity, and why a house mark may not avoid passing off.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/160518.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/160518.jpg","width":1170,"height":658,"caption":"Dabur vs Emami trade dress case"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/dabur-vs-emami-trade-dress-passing-off-house-mark-not-enough\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Dabur vs Emami Trade Dress Case: Delhi High Court Rules House Mark Not Enough to Avoid Passing Off"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/160518.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24974"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24974\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/24973"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}