Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against Dabur for Trade Dress Similarity and Passing Off: Emami v. Dabur

Summary

In Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 23/2026, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court upheld an interim injunction restraining Dabur from using its existing trade dress for its cooling hair oil product, “COOL KING THANDA TAEL”. The Court found that Emami had established a strong prima facie case of passing off, observing that the overall visual presentation of Dabur’s product bore striking similarities to Emami’s well-known “Navratna Oil” packaging. The judgment reiterates that while individual packaging elements may be common to the trade, the overall combination and arrangement of those elements can acquire distinctiveness deserving protection.

Facts of the Case

The respondent, Emami Limited, launched “Navratna Oil” in 1989 and has used the product’s distinctive trade dress and the tagline “Thanda Thanda Cool Cool” continuously for over three decades. Through extensive promotion and sales, the product acquired substantial goodwill and became a market leader in the therapeutic cooling oil segment, commanding a significant market share. Emami also secured various trademark, copyright, and design registrations relating to its packaging and branding.

In June 2023, Dabur introduced a competing cooling hair oil under the brand name “COOL KING THANDA TAEL”. Emami alleged that Dabur had deliberately adopted a trade dress closely resembling that of Navratna Oil, including the colour scheme, packaging layout, imagery, and overall visual appearance. Claiming that the adoption was intended to ride upon the reputation and goodwill associated with Navratna Oil, Emami filed a commercial suit seeking an injunction against Dabur.

The learned Single Judge granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Emami. Aggrieved by the order, Dabur preferred an appeal before the Division Bench, contending that the allegedly similar elements were common, descriptive, and incapable of exclusive appropriation. Dabur further argued that the prominent display of its well-known house mark “DABUR” was sufficient to distinguish its product from that of Emami.

Issue before the Court

Whether Emami had established the essential ingredients of a passing off action, namely goodwill in its trade dress, likelihood of consumer confusion arising from Dabur’s packaging, and the consequent risk of commercial damage, so as to justify the continuation of the interim injunction.

Findings of the Court

The Court observed that trade dress protection extends to the overall visual appearance of a product, including its packaging, colour combination, layout, get-up, and presentation. While individual elements such as the colour red, depictions of hibiscus flowers, ice cubes, or descriptive expressions like “cool” and “thanda” may not be exclusively protectable in isolation, the law protects the distinctive combination and arrangement of such elements when they have come to signify a particular source in the minds of consumers.

Upon comparing the rival products, the Court found substantial similarities in the bottle shape, colour scheme, placement of features, imagery of ice cubes and hibiscus flowers, colour of the oil, and overall packaging presentation. The Bench noted that the cumulative effect of these similarities created a strong likelihood of consumer confusion and could not be dismissed as mere coincidence.

The Court further held that the presence of Dabur’s house mark did not negate the possibility of deception. From the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection, the overall trade dress of the competing products was sufficiently similar to create an impression of association with Emami’s Navratna Oil. Consequently, Emami had successfully established a prima facie case of passing off.

Held

The Division Bench dismissed Dabur’s appeal and upheld the injunction granted by the Single Judge. The Court restrained Dabur from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or distributing its “COOL KING THANDA TAEL” product in the impugned trade dress. It held that Emami had satisfied the triple test for passing off by demonstrating goodwill, likelihood of confusion, and potential commercial injury. However, the Court clarified that its observations were prima facie in nature and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the suit after trial.

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the importance of trade dress protection in Indian trademark law and highlights that passing off claims are assessed on the overall commercial impression created by competing products. It underscores that competitors cannot evade liability by relying on generic or descriptive elements when the cumulative packaging presentation closely imitates that of a market leader. The ruling also affirms that the use of a prominent house mark is not a complete defence where the overall trade dress is likely to mislead consumers and appropriate another trader’s goodwill.

Last Updated on 13 June, 2026