Delhi High Court Refers EBC-Rupa Trademark Dispute Over Constitution Pocket Edition to Mediation

New Delhi – In a significant development in intellectual property litigation, the Delhi High Court has directed two of India's leading publishers, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (EBC) and Rupa Publications India Pvt. Ltd. (Rupa), to attempt a mediated resolution of their contentious trademark dispute. The case, centered on the alleged deceptive similarity of their respective coat-pocket editions of the Constitution of India, underscores the expanding scope of trade dress protection in the publishing industry and the judiciary's increasing reliance on alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

On November 6, 2025, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, after securing the consent of both parties, referred the matter to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre. The court has scheduled the first mediation session for November 20, 2025.

"With the consent of parties, the matter is referred to the Mediation Centre. Organising Secretary is requested to appoint a Senior Mediator in this matter," stated the court's order, signaling a pivotal shift from adversarial proceedings towards a collaborative settlement process.

The move to mediation follows a period of intense litigation, which began when EBC, the plaintiff, sought an injunction against Rupa, alleging that the latter's pocket edition of the Constitution infringed upon EBC's established trade dress.

The Core of the Dispute: Protecting a "Look and Feel"

The central legal issue revolves around the concept of trade dress—the overall commercial image or appearance of a product that indicates or identifies the source of the product and distinguishes it from those of others. In this instance, EBC claims that its coat-pocket Constitution, known for its specific red cover, gold foil detailing, font style, and overall layout, has acquired a secondary meaning in the market, making it a unique source identifier for the company.

The dispute came to a head on September 25, 2025, when the High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of EBC. In its initial order, the court found a prima facie case of infringement, restraining Rupa from manufacturing, selling, or advertising its version of the pocket Constitution.

The court's reasoning for the injunction was rooted in a direct comparison of the two products. It observed that the similarities in "colour scheme, gold detailing, font, and layout" were too pronounced to be coincidental. The court concluded that Rupa had "entirely copied the layout" of EBC’s product, demonstrating a lack of independent creative effort. This created a strong likelihood of confusion among the target audience, which includes lawyers, law students, and the general public, as both publishers operate through the same trade channels.

Legal Precedent and the Nuances of Colour Trademarks

In its September order, the court invoked a well-established principle of trademark law, citing its own precedent in Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd. This principle holds that while no single entity can claim a monopoly over a primary colour, a unique and consistently used combination of colours, packaging, and design elements can collectively function as a trademark. When this trade dress becomes distinctive and associated with a particular source in the minds of consumers, it is entitled to legal protection from imitation.

The court determined that EBC had made a strong prima facie argument that its specific combination of red and gold, along with other design elements, had become a hallmark of its brand for this particular product, thus warranting protection against deceptively similar products that could dilute its brand identity and mislead consumers.

From Injunction to Mediation: A Pragmatic Turn

Following the injunction, Rupa Publications filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to vacate the court's ex-parte order. However, when the matter was listed for hearing on November 6, the legal counsels for both EBC and Rupa informed the court of their willingness to explore a settlement.

This consensual pivot to mediation is reflective of a broader judicial trend favouring ADR, particularly in complex commercial and IP disputes where business relationships and market dynamics are at play. Mediation offers a confidential, flexible, and potentially faster route to resolution, allowing parties to craft creative, business-oriented solutions that may not be available through a traditional court judgment. It can help preserve commercial relationships and avoid the protracted costs and uncertainties of litigation.

Implications for the Publishing and Legal Community

This case, EBC Publishing (P) Ltd & Anr v. Rupa Publications India Private Limited [CS (COMM) 1034/2025], serves as a critical reminder for the publishing industry about the importance of trade dress. Key takeaways include:

1. Trade Dress as a Valuable Asset: Publishers invest significantly in cover design, layout, and branding. This case affirms that this "look and feel" is a protectable intellectual property asset, just like a brand name or logo. It highlights the need for publishers to be vigilant in protecting their unique product designs from imitation.

2. The "Likelihood of Confusion" Standard: The court's initial finding was based on the potential for consumer confusion. This reinforces that the test for infringement is not absolute identity but whether the similarity is substantial enough to deceive an average consumer into believing the infringing product is associated with the original brand.

3. The Rise of ADR in IP Disputes: The referral to mediation is significant. For legal practitioners, it demonstrates that even after securing a powerful tool like an ex-parte injunction, exploring settlement through ADR is a viable and often encouraged strategy. It suggests that courts are keen to facilitate resolutions that are commercially pragmatic for the litigants.

4. Public Domain Works and IP Protection: The dispute is particularly interesting because the underlying content—the text of the Constitution of India—is in the public domain. This case clarifies that while the content itself cannot be monopolized, the unique manner of its presentation (i.e., the trade dress) can be.

As the parties prepare to meet before the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, the legal and publishing communities will be watching closely. A successful mediation could set a precedent for resolving similar IP disputes amicably, while a failure to reach an agreement would return the matter to the High Court for a detailed adjudication on the merits of the trade dress infringement claim.

The plaintiff, EBC Publishing, was represented by Advocates Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Shagun Agarwal, and Zeeshan Ahmad. The defendant, Rupa Publications, was represented by Advocates Rahul Sharma, Santanam Swaminadman, Anand Singh, Kartik Malhotra, Anindit Mandal, and Darshitha.