Delhi High Court upholds injunction against Dabur in Emami trade dress dispute, ruling that similarities in packaging and visual elements of cooling oils are likely to mislead consumers and amount to passing off
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has upheld an injunction against Dabur India in its ongoing dispute with Emami over alleged trade dress infringement in cooling oil products. The court observed that the overall visual appearance of Dabur’s product packaging, including layout and colour scheme, was deceptively similar to Emami’s established trade dress. It held that such similarity was likely to mislead consumers and amounted to passing off.
The ruling came on an appeal against a 31 January 2026 order passed by Justice Tejas Karia, which had restrained Dabur from using the contested packaging.
Single Bench Found Deceptive Similarity
The Single Judge had earlier held that Dabur’s packaging bore a strong resemblance to Emami’s Navratna Oil, which has been sold in its distinctive red trade dress since 1989. The court noted that several elements of Dabur’s packaging, including the red colour scheme, bottle design, depiction of hibiscus flowers, ice cubes and ayurvedic herbs, as well as the use of Hindi terms such as ‘Raahat’, ‘Aaraam’ and ‘Tarotaazgi’ in a similar sequence, were not coincidental.
It was further observed that Dabur’s launch advertisement for its Cool King product had prominently featured Emami’s Navratna bottle, positioning the product as a shelf substitute. The court viewed this as an indication of intent to capitalise on Emami’s goodwill.
Dabur’s Defence Rejected
Dabur had argued that its house mark “Dabur” was prominently displayed on the packaging and sufficient to eliminate any possibility of consumer confusion. It further contended that the use of red colour in cooling oils was functional and common across the industry.
The company also submitted that elements such as hibiscus flowers, menthol imagery, ice blocks and descriptive terms like ‘cool’ and ‘thanda’ were generic to the segment and could not be monopolised. However, the Single Judge rejected these submissions, holding that the presence of a house mark does not cure passing off where the overall trade dress remains deceptively similar.
The court further observed that while no monopoly could be claimed over individual elements such as colour or herbal imagery, the distinctive combination and overall presentation of Emami’s product had acquired secondary meaning through decades of use.
The Division Bench upheld these findings and dismissed Dabur’s appeal, thereby sustaining the temporary injunction granted earlier. Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appeared for Dabur India along with Advocates Kripa Pandit, Prabhu Tandon, Christopher Thomas, Krisna Gambhir and Shreya Sethi.
