Delhi HC Monitors Revised Packaging in Beiersdorf-Emami Trade Dress Suit

The High Court of Delhi is currently presiding over a high-stakes intellectual property battle between global cosmetic giant Beiersdorf AG and domestic personal care manufacturer Emami Limited. The case, centered on allegations of trade dress infringement, took a procedural turn this week as the defendant presented a plan to transition to a revised product packaging design.

Background of the Dispute

The litigation concerns claims by Beiersdorf AG—the owner of well-known skincare brands—that Emami Limited’s product marketing and packaging bear a "deceptively similar" resemblance to their own protected trade dress. The suit seeks to protect the unique visual identity of their products, arguing that the similarity confuses consumers and encroaches upon their brand equity.

Following earlier proceedings on December 19, 2025, where the defendant provided certain assurances, the matter returned to the court to address the defendant's proposed remedial steps.

Defendant’s Move Toward Compliance

In the latest hearing, counsel for Emami Limited informed the court that the company had filed an affidavit detailing its existing stock of the contested products. Crucially, the defendant declared it would discontinue a "splash advertisement" previously identified as a point of contention.

To resolve the impasse, Emami Limited introduced a revised packaging design for four of its products. The defendant asserted that these changes were specifically engineered to eliminate any common features with the plaintiff’s trade dress. "He states that in the revised packaging the defendant has taken steps to ensure that there are no common features with the plaintiff’s trade dress making its distinct and dissimilar," the court order reflected.

Plaintiff’s Stance

Beiersdorf AG, however, maintains a cautious stance. Their legal team formally refuted the defendant’s characterization of the new packaging. They argued that despite the revisions, the product line continues to share a combination of distinctive features that they contend constitutes deceptive similarity to their own brand. Nevertheless, the plaintiff agreed to allow the matter to proceed to the pleadings stage before further arguments on the injunction application are heard.

Key Observations

The court has carefully balanced the need for immediate relief against the practicalities of the transition. Key observations from the judgment include:

• "The defendant is bound down to its statements recorded in order dated 19.12.2025 as well as the statement recorded today."
• "The defendant is directed to take steps to discontinue advertising its products in the old packaging impugned in the plaint."
• "It is clarified that liberty granted to the defendant to adopt revised packaging is not an expression of opinion on the stand of the defendant."

Path Forward

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has directed a structured timeline for the completion of pleadings to expedite the resolution of the injunction application. The defendant has been granted 15 days to file a written statement and reply, with the plaintiff expected to file a replication one week thereafter.

The court has permitted Emami Limited to air advertisements showing the transition from the old packaging to the new, provided that the legacy marketing campaigns are discontinued. The matter is set for the next hearing on January 19, 2026, where the court will further evaluate the merits of the competing claims. As it stands, the case underscores the evolving standards of trade dress protection in the competitive Indian personal care market.