Delhi High Court Grants Ad-interim Injunction Against Trade Dress Infringement: Onesto Labs v. Foxteel - 2026-05-25

The Battle for the Bottle: Delhi High Court Curbs "Slavish Imitation" in Personal Care Market

In a significant move to protect intellectual property in the booming e-commerce personal care sector, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against manufacturers and retailers selling products under the brand "FOXTEEL." The order comes as a major victory for Onesto Labs Private Limited, the proprietor of the "Bare Anatomy" brand, which alleged that its premium hair care range was being "slavishly imitated."

The Anatomy of a Dispute

Onesto Labs, established in 2018, has built a robust reputation for its personal care products, characterized by a specific "Subject Trade Dress"—a distinct color palette, bottle shape, and ingredient layout. The company alleged that in November 2025, they discovered that products under the name "FOXTEEL" were being marketed on major platforms like Amazon and Jiomart using packaging that was not just similar, but arguably identical to theirs.

The complaint detailed a "triple identity" crisis: the impugned products shared identical trade dress, were in the same product category, and were sold through the same digital trade channels. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had even replicated the comparative product literature and efficacy claims—copying everything from font placement to specific biochemical ingredients like Redensyl and Anagain.

Triple Identity and Consumer Confusion

The court found that the imitation went beyond mere coincidence. By "sponsored" listing tactics on e-commerce platforms, the defendants appeared to ensure that the "FOXTEEL" products appeared side-by-side with "Bare Anatomy" items, potentially misleading consumers into a false sense of association.

Justice Tejas Karia, in his order dated December 2, 2025, observed that the visual similarity was so stark that it would likely cause confusion for an average consumer with an imperfect recollection, thereby harming the plaintiff’s acquired goodwill.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court’s decision is anchored in the protection of both statutory rights and common law reputation. Several key observations underscore the court’s rationale:

• "This is a case of triple identity where the Impugned Trade Dress is identical, the product category is identical and the trade channel as also the consumer base is identical."
• "The near-identical replication of bottle shape, colour palette, ingredient layout, efficacy claims, placement of product name... establish that the Defendant No. 1 was aware of the Plaintiff’s prior rights and have mala fidely replicated the Subject Trade Dress."
• "The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, as the continued manufacture, advertisement, and sale of the Impugned Products is likely to dilute the distinctiveness of the Subject Trade Dress."
• "The Plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable injury, if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted."

The Verdict and Its Impact

The High Court has issued a sweeping interim order restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or advertising the infringing products. Furthermore, the court directed platform operator Jiomart to remove the infringing listings within 24 hours of receiving the order.

This case sets a strong precedent for brand owners in the direct-to-consumer (D2C) space, where visual identity constitutes a significant portion of brand value. By cracking down on the "slavish" copying of trade dress, the Delhi High Court has reinforced the importance of authenticity in the digital marketplace. As the matter moves toward the next hearing scheduled for March 23, 2026, the industry will be watching closely to see how the court handles the final determination of damages and permanent relief.