<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court in this matter dealt with a dispute between two well-known companies, Dabur India Limited and Emami Limited. The dispute pertained to the packaging and the appearance of the cooling hair oil products. The case came before the Division Bench in the form of an appeal against an interim injunction passed by a Single Judge in favour of Emami which alleged that Dabur’s product, \u201cCool King Thanda Tael,\u201d resembled the trade dress of its long established \u201cNavratna Oil.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The issue before the Court was whether the packaging of Dabur could mislead the consumers into believing that the product was connected with Emami\u2019s product.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n Emami, the respondent herein, launched Navratna Oil in 1989 and developed its presence in the market. The product became popular for its unique red packaging, red coloured oil, images of herbs, red cap, hibiscus flowers and the blocks of ice, along with the slogan \u201cThanda Thanda Cool Cool.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Dabur, the appellant herein, introduced Cool King Thanda Tael in June 2023. Soon thereafter the respondent claimed that the newly introduced product copied several features closely, resembling the overall look and feel of Navratna Oil. It was also alleged that the similarities were not only in colour combinations, but also in the use of descriptive terms such as \u201cRaahat,\u201d \u201cAaram,\u201d and \u201cTarotaazgi.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The respondent, while believing that the appellant was trying to take advantage from the goodwill, which was attached to Navratna Oil, filed a passing off action before the Delhi High Court and obtained an interim injunction from the Single Judge. Aggrieved by the same, Dabur filed the present appeal before the Division Bench.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision<\/b><\/p>\n The appeal was dismissed by the Delhi High Court and the interim injunction granted in favour of the respondent was upheld.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It was observed by the Court that although features such as the red colour, images of herbs, ice blocks or flowers could not be claimed by any one trader, the overall mix and presentation of those features could acquire a distinctive identity through continuous use over time. In the present case, it was found that trade dress disputes cannot be resolved by breaking down the appearance of a product into separate elements. Instead, the overall impression created by the packaging must be considered from the perspective of an average consumer.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court also rejected the argument as to the presence of the name \u201cDabur\u201d automatically ruling out any confusion. It was noted that cooling hair oils are everyday products and decisions as to purchasing are often made quickly without closely observing each and every feature on the package.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Finding no error in the reasoning of the Single Judge, the injunction was upheld by the Division Bench and Dabur was restrained from using the impugned trade dress during the pendency of the proceedings.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Dabur India Limited\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 Emami Limited\u00a0 FAO(OS) (COMM) 23\/2026\u00a0 (DB, Before V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.) Overview The Delhi High Court in this matter dealt with a dispute between two well-known companies, Dabur India Limited and Emami Limited. The dispute pertained to the packaging and the appearance of the cooling […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3770,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3769","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3769","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3769"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3769\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3772,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3769\/revisions\/3772"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3770"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3769"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3769"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3769"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n