From Cosmetics to Capital Markets: Recent Rulings Highlight Corporate Accountability

New Delhi – Recent decisions from a Delhi Commercial Court and the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) have cast a spotlight on the critical importance of corporate vigilance, from protecting intellectual property to ensuring regulatory compliance in financial markets. In a significant intellectual property ruling, the Delhi court permanently restrained a trader from imitating the trade dress of L'Oréal's 'Garnier' brand, awarding damages for infringement. Concurrently, SEBI imposed a monetary penalty on a merchant banker for critical lapses in due diligence during a corporate takeover, underscoring the stringent obligations placed on market intermediaries.

These cases, while spanning different legal domains, converge on a central theme: the legal and financial consequences of failing to uphold established standards of conduct, whether in product marketing or corporate transactions.

---

Delhi Court Shields Garnier's Trade Dress in Infringement Suit

In a decisive order reinforcing the protection of distinctive product packaging, the Commercial Court at Saket, New Delhi, has permanently enjoined a Surat-based trader from mimicking the trade dress of L'Oréal S.A.'s popular "Garnier Bright Complete Vitamin C Booster Serum."

The judgment, delivered on October 29 by District Judge Savita Rao, found the defendant guilty of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement, awarding L'Oréal Rs 2,00,000 in nominal damages and litigation costs. The case, L'Oreal S.A. v. Yetish Kantibhai Shekhada (CS (COMM) No. 478/2024), serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding established brands against imitation.

The Core of the Dispute: Deceptive Similarity

L'Oréal initiated the suit to protect its "Garnier Bright Complete" mark and its associated packaging. The product, launched in 2020, boasts a distinctive trade dress characterized by a unique bottle shape, specific color combinations, and label styling. The plaintiff argued that the Surat-based trader's product, marketed as “Vedant Bright Complete Vitamin C Booster Serum,” deliberately copied these key visual elements, creating a product that was "confusingly similar" and likely to mislead consumers into believing it was affiliated with or endorsed by Garnier.

The court’s scrutiny of the evidence presented by L'Oréal led it to a clear conclusion. It observed that the defendant had infringed L'Oréal's trade dress and copyright by reproducing its distinctive label and colour combination. The court's observation was unequivocal: “Since plaintiff has submitted on record and established by way of documentary submissions that defendant has infringed the impugned trade dress/label/colour combination of plaintiff; passed off its goods as that of the plaintiff; infringed the plaintiff's copyright in the said trade dress/label/colour combination by using, publishing, reproducing the same. Suffice it is, if the trade dress/label/colour combination of defendant is likely to cause confusion in mind of general public.”

Procedural Posture and the Power of Order VIII Rule 10

The case took a decisive turn due to the defendant's failure to engage with the judicial process. After L'Oréal secured an ex parte interim injunction on October 18, 2024, the defendant, Yetish Kantibhai Shekhada, was served notice but failed to appear in court or file a written statement.

This inaction prompted the court to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This provision empowers a court to pronounce judgment against a defendant who fails to file a written statement within the prescribed time limit. The court, therefore, proceeded based on the unrebutted evidence submitted by L'Oréal, which included photographic comparisons of the two products, establishing a clear case of imitation.

The court made the initial injunction permanent, thereby barring the trader and his associates from using any packaging that is "identical or deceptively similar" to Garnier's. Despite the defendant having reportedly ceased using the infringing packaging, the court deemed the initial conduct sufficient to warrant an award of nominal damages, signaling that infringement, even if discontinued, will not go without consequence.

---

SEBI Penalizes Merchant Banker for Due Diligence Failures in Open Offer

In a parallel development in the realm of corporate and securities law, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has penalized merchant banker Kunvarji Finstock Private Limited for significant lapses in due diligence during an open offer for Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited.

Adjudicating Officer Jai Sebastian imposed a penalty of Rs 3,00,000, holding the merchant banker accountable for failing to ensure the accuracy of disclosures in the Letter of Offer (LOF). The order highlights the non-delegable and standalone duty of merchant bankers to uphold regulatory standards, irrespective of the conduct of their clients.

The Factual Discrepancy

The issue arose from an open offer triggered by the acquisition of a 51.32% stake in Mediaone by UK-based PPG International Limited in July 2022. Kunvarji Finstock, acting as the manager to the offer, filed offer documents stating that J Murali Manohar was a promoter of Mediaone and also held 100% of the shares of the acquirer.

However, SEBI's investigation revealed a crucial discrepancy. Public records indicated that Manohar had transferred his entire shareholding in the acquirer to another individual, Gheetha Ammasee, on June 1, 2022—months before the offer documents were filed. The merchant banker had failed to conduct fresh due diligence to verify this critical information, resulting in the LOF containing materially inaccurate statements about the acquirer's ownership structure.

SEBI's order emphasized that the merchant banker’s obligation is paramount. The regulator observed, "the obligations of the merchant banker acting as manager to the open offer is a standalone one unaffected by the conduct of its client (Acquirer)."

Violations and Legal Implications

SEBI concluded that Kunvarji Finstock violated Regulation 27(2) and 27(5) of the SEBI (Substantial Acquisition of Shares and Takeovers) Regulations, 2011, and Regulation 13 and Clause 4 of Schedule III of the SEBI (Merchant Bankers) Regulations, 1992. The core of the violation was the failure to ensure the LOF was "true fair and adequate in all material aspects, not misleading in any material particular and based on reliable sources."

Interestingly, the adjudication proceedings against J Murali Manohar were disposed of without any penalty, as SEBI found no violation on his part under the SAST Regulations. The accountability was placed squarely on the shoulders of the registered intermediary. The order clarifies that while there was no evidence of direct financial gain for the banker or loss to investors from this specific lapse, the failure of a SEBI-registered intermediary to meet its statutory obligations warrants a penalty to maintain market integrity and discipline.

---

A Unified Message for Legal Practitioners

Though originating from different legal spheres, these two rulings deliver a unified message to the legal and business communities. The L'Oréal case reaffirms that intellectual property rights, particularly the visual identity of a product, are robustly protected assets. It also illustrates the procedural consequences of ignoring court proceedings. For IP litigators, it underscores the effectiveness of presenting clear, comparative evidence and leveraging procedural rules like Order VIII Rule 10 to secure favorable judgments against non-cooperative defendants.

The SEBI order, on the other hand, is a stark reminder for corporate lawyers and financial intermediaries of the exacting standards of due diligence required in securities transactions. It reinforces that the role of a merchant banker is not merely advisory but custodial, with a direct responsibility to the market and its investors to ensure the integrity of public disclosures. The penalty serves as a deterrent, emphasizing that "checking the boxes" is insufficient; a proactive and continuous verification of facts is essential.

Together, these decisions highlight a broader trend of judicial and regulatory bodies holding entities accountable for their actions—and inactions—ensuring a level playing field in both the marketplace of goods and the marketplace of securities.