Slavish Imitation of Packaging Layout and Ingredients Amounts to Copyright Infringement: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has delivered a stern warning to counterfeiters in the cosmetic industry, granting an interim injunction against Freecia Professional India Private Limited (the Defendant) for the "slavish imitation" of the product packaging and literary content of O3+ facial kits. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, presiding over the matter, ruled that Verbatim copying of ingredient lists and usage instructions constitutes a prima facie violation of the plaintiff’s copyright.

Case Background

Visage Beauty and Healthcare Private Limited, the proprietor of the well-known O3+ brand, filed the suit alleging that the defendant's 'PROADS' range of facial kits was designed to ride on the coattails of their established reputation. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had adopted identical descriptive content, layout, and trademarks—specifically 'D-TAN', 'DERMOMELAN', and 'SHINE & GLOW'—for their own products.

The litigation centers on three primary kits: O3+ Bridal Facial Kit , Vitamin C Glowing Skin Kit , and the Shine & Glow Kit . While the defendant had initially appeared in court, they failed to present a defense after December 2024, resulting in the court proceeding ex-parte against them.

Arguments Presented

The plaintiff argued that their products are "coined, catchy, and fanciful," serving as artistic works that have garnered substantial goodwill through over Rs. 21 crores in advertising expenditure. They asserted that the defendant's decision to copy not only the trademarks but the precise text for 'Ingredients' and 'Steps to use' demonstrated a dishonest intention to deceive consumers.

In their written statement, the defendant had contended that the ingredient lists and application steps were "standard industry practice" and that the disputed marks were descriptive. However, the court found their evidence—generic images of third-party products—entirely unsubstantiated and lacking clarity.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a sharp critique of the defendant's packaging strategy. During the proceedings, the court highlighted:

• "Upon a perusal of the abovementioned comparison chart, the Plaintiff’s submission that Defendant No. 1 has substantially copied the description of the ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ of the Plaintiff’s product is duly borne out."
• "The Defendant No. 1’s action of using the mark ‘DERMOMELAN’ in the ingredients, in fact, it appears to the Court as evidence that the Defendant No. 1 while slavishly copying the Plaintiff’s packaging has included this word in its ‘steps to use’."
• "In view of the substantial similarity in the layout, in the description ‘ingredients’ and ‘steps to use’ on the infringing product, which the Defendant No. 1 has failed to justify, the Defendant No. 1 is restrained from using the layout."

The Court's Decision

Justice Arora granted the interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s layout, ingredient lists, and usage steps. Importantly, the court also blocked the use of the 'DERMOMELAN' trademark, rejecting the defendant's claim that it was a generic product descriptor.

However, the court exercised caution regarding the 'SHINE & GLOW' trademark, noting that the defendant's usage of "Shine & Glowing" might be considered descriptive in a different legal context. Nevertheless, the overarching mandate remains clear: cosmetic manufacturers cannot simply replicate the literary and artistic labor of competitors under the guise of "industry practice." This decision solidifies the protection of intellectual property in the retail sector, placing the burden of evidence squarely on those who claim that their imitation is merely common, descriptive practice.