SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Del) 319

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Senior Advocate with Ms. Roohe Hina Dua, Mr. Harshit Khanduja & Mr. Vinayak Thakur, Advocates.
For the Defendant :Mr. Sandeep Sethi & Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Senior Advocates with Ms. Kripa Pandit, Mr. Christopher Thomas & Ms. Pranjali Arya, Advocates.

Establishing trademark passing off requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage, emphasizing overall impression over minor differences.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Passing off action concerning Trade Dress - Plaintiff, with established goodwill and sales turnover, successfully argued that Defendant’s product was deceptively similar to theirs leading to confusion - Unlawful imitation by Defendant of essential features of Plaintiff’s Trade Dress - Court grants injunction against Defendant. (Paras 1, 8, 21, 28)

(B) Legal principles of passing off - It requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage - The focus is on overall impression rather than fine details - Adoption of similar Trade Dress without valid reason assumed to be dishonest. (Paras 6.1, 24, 26)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff is a recognized leader in therapeutic cooling oil with significant market share and has established goodwill over decades. Plaintiff claims that Defendant has unlawfully imitated its Trade Dress and product identifiers to pass off products as its own, leading to public confusion. Defendant introduced similar colored packaging and markings without justification for its design choices. (Paras 10, 13, 25)

Findings of Court:
There is a clear attempt by the Defendant to imitate Plaintiff’s distinctive packaging and branding elements, constituting passing off. Court noted the absence of a credible defense from the Defendant regarding the similarities. (Paras 21, 27)

Issues: The key issue was whether Defendant’s product trade dress reproduced essential elements of the Plaintiff’s trade dress, misleading consumers into believing there is an association with the Plaintiff’s product. (Para 28)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that while individual elements may not be exclusive, the combination creates distinctiveness warranting protection against imitation. The Defendant's actions were deemed dishonest due to lack of any legitimate business rationale for the similarities. (Paras 22, 25)

Result: Injunction granted against the Defendant from using the similar Trade Dress.

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

any manner, in the Trade Dress ‘ ’ (“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.TRADEMARKReg. No.CLASSSTATUSDATE OF REGISTRATION
1NAVRATNA (LABEL)NAVRATNA (LABEL)785156REGISTERED06.01.1998
2NAVRATNA (LABEL)
785157
05REGISTERED06.01.1998
3.NAVRATNA OIL
(RED TRADE DRESS DEVICE)
(LABEL)

106816605REGISTERED20.12.2001
4.THANDHA THANDA COOL COOL
(DEVICE)
130565303REGISTERED27


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top