IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TEJAS KARIA, J.
Emami Limited – Plaintiff
Versus
Dabur India Limited – Defendant
CS(COMM) 532 of 2023
Decided On : 31-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the case and initial orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. defendant's appeal and adjustments in proceedings. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. plaintiff's background and market position. (Para 5) |
| 4. summary of plaintiff's arguments against defendant. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. core legal analysis of passing off claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. details of plaintiff's product characteristics. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. plaintiff's claims regarding defendant's imitation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. counterarguments presented by the defendant. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 9. defendant's defense based on trade practices. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 10. analysis of distinctiveness and conclusion of findings before the order. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 11. outcome of the legal proceedings and the injunction. (Para 26 , 27) |
| 12. final conclusion and disposal of the application. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
TEJAS KARIA, J.
I.A. No. 14557/2023 (u/O XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC)
1. This is an Application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”).
2. Vide Order dated 09.08.2023, the Defendant was restrained from selling its product ‘Cool King Thanda Tael’ (“Defendant’s Product”), in
’ (“Impugned Trade Dress”) or any other deceptively similar Trade Dress.3. The Defendant preferred an appeal against the Order dated 09.08.2023. The Division Bench vide Order dated 21.08.2023 passed in FAO (OS)(COMM) 171/2023 set aside the Order dated 09.08.2023 on the limited ground that in the circumstances of the present case, the Defendant ought to have been given an opportunity to file its Reply to the present Application before adjudicating on the aspect of interim stay.
4. As recorded in Order dated 29.02.2024, the Plaintiff has confined its submissions on aspect of passing off in this Application subject to reserving the right of the Plaintiff for other reliefs in the Suit.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:
5.1 The Plaintiff, established in the year 1974, is the flagship company of the Emami Group of Companies and is engaged in, inter alia, manufacturing and marketing of health, beauty, personal care and other allied products, and is one of the leading and fastest growing personal and healthcare businesses m India. The Plaintiff commenced manufacturing ayurvedic medicine and medicinal preparations in India in the year 1982 and is one of the pioneers amongst the manufacturers of ayurvedic medicines and ayurvedic medicinal preparations in India and has earned the tremendous trust and confidence of millions of people spread all over the country, both within and outside the jurisdiction aforesaid and several other countries to which the Plaintiff has been exporting its products.
5.2 Navaratna Oil (“Plaintiff’s Product”) was launched in January 1989, with the catch phrase ‘Thanda Thanda Cool Cool’, and has been in continuous and uninterrupted use ever since. Navratna has been the most trusted and preferred Trade Mark in the therapeutic cooling oil segment for a very long time. The Plaintiff’s Product is the undisputed leader in its therapeutic cooling oil segment providing multi-purpose benefits to its satisfied and ever-growing consumer base. The Plaintiff’s Product has a market share of 66% as of 2022 in the cooling oil segment. The Plaintiff has obtained registrations for the Marks, ‘NAVRATNA’, ‘NAVRATNA OIL’, ‘NAVRATNA AYURVEDIC TAEL THANDA’, ‘THANDA THANDA COOL COOL’, ‘COOL COOL’, ‘THANDA THANDA Cool Cool’, and ‘HALKA HALKA COOL COOL’ (“Plaintiff’s Marks”), to sell the Plaintiff’s Product. The registration details of the Plaintiff’s Marks used in the Plaintiff’s Product are as under:
| S. No. | TRADEMARK | Reg. No. | CLASS | STATUS | DATE OF REGISTRATION |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | NAVRATNA (LABEL) | NAVRATNA (LABEL) | 785156 | REGISTERED | 06.01.1998 |
| 2 | NAVRATNA (LABEL) | 785157 | 05 | REGISTERED | 06.01.1998 |
| 3. | NAVRATNA OIL (RED TRADE DRESS DEVICE) (LABEL) | 1068166 | 05 | REGISTERED | 20.12.2001 |
| 4. | THANDHA THANDA COOL COOL (DEVICE) | 1305653 | 03 | REGISTERED | 27 |









Corn Products Refining Co v Shangrila Food Products Ltd.
Heinz Italia and Anr v Dabur India Ltd.
Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceutical Limited
Soothe Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. v. Dabur India Limited
Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private limited v. Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Red Bull AG v. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt Ltd.
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories
Establishing trademark passing off requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage, emphasizing overall impression over minor differences.
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
if there is no infirmity found in the order of the Trial Court, injunction against encashment of bank guarantee and letter of credit should not be granted except where fraud or irretrievable damage i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption of a similar trade dress, including color scheme, with a dishonest intention to infringe a well-known trademark and pass off good....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.