Delhi High Court upholds Dabur Cool King trade dress bar

What the Delhi High Court ruled on Friday

The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Dabur India Limited’s appeal against a temporary injunction that restrains it from selling its cooling hair oil product, “Cool King Thanda Tael,” in the challenged packaging. The dispute is a passing off action filed by Emami Limited, which sells “Navratna Ayurvedic Oil.” The Division Bench upheld a single-judge order that had found Dabur’s packaging to be deceptively similar to Emami’s trade dress. The court’s reasoning focused on the overall visual impression created by the competing packs rather than any one isolated element. The outcome keeps the interim restraint in place while the underlying suit continues.

Parties and products at the centre of the dispute

Emami argued that Navratna’s trade dress is distinctive and has acquired goodwill through long use. The single judge recorded that Navratna’s trade dress has been in continuous use since 1989. Dabur’s product, “Cool King Thanda Tael,” was challenged not for the word mark “DABUR” but for the overall packaging presentation. Dabur relied on its prominent “DABUR” house mark as a point of distinction. The High Court, at the interim stage, did not accept that the house mark alone was sufficient to eliminate the likelihood of confusion given the remaining similarities found.

The single-judge order dated January 31, 2026

The order under challenge was passed on January 31, 2026, by Justice Tejas Karia. At the interim stage, the single judge held that Dabur’s packaging amounted to passing off and described it as a deliberate imitation of Emami’s distinctive trade dress. The court found that Emami had, prima facie, established the classic passing off elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage. Based on that assessment, Dabur was restrained from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale “Cool King Thanda Tael” in the impugned trade dress or any other deceptively similar trade dress. This was decided in the context of interim relief under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC.

Why the High Court found “deceptive similarity”

In upholding the injunction, the Division Bench agreed with the finding that the overall trade dress of Dabur’s product was deceptively similar to Emami’s. The court’s focus remained on the combined visual appearance, including the lay-out and colour scheme, and whether it could mislead consumers. The single-judge order had identified several elements as being copied in combination, including colour, bottle shape, cap, liquid colour, and imagery. It also referred to the use of the combination of red, white, yellow and gold, together with visuals such as ice cubes, hibiscus flowers, and ayurvedic herbs. The single judge also noted the use of the words “Raahat”, “Aaraam” and “Tarotaazgi” in the same order as part of the overall similarity assessment.

Dabur’s key defence and how the court dealt with it

Dabur’s defence included the argument that features like the colour red and cooling-related imagery are common to the trade. Dabur also relied on its “DABUR” branding to say consumers would not be confused. The court, however, emphasised that while a party may not claim monopoly over individual elements such as a colour or the concept of herbs, the distinctive combination, arrangement and presentation of elements can acquire protection when it develops secondary meaning. In this case, the single judge found that the overall presentation associated with Navratna had acquired such distinctiveness. The interim finding was that Dabur’s pack crossed the line from inspiration into imitation when the essential features were taken together.

Division Bench decision: appeal dismissed, injunction continues

A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora dismissed Dabur’s appeal and upheld the temporary restraint. The Bench observed that its conclusion was based on the finding that the trade dress encompassing the overall visual appearance, including layout and colour scheme, had been rightly injuncted because it was deceptively similar and likely to mislead consumers, amounting to passing off. Practically, this means Dabur cannot sell “Cool King Thanda Tael” in the impugned packaging while the case proceeds. The decision reinforces that, at least at an interim stage, courts will test similarity by considering the overall commercial impression rather than conducting a feature-by-feature dissection.

Key case details on record

The matter is reported with the following details as stated in the case information provided.

Why this matters for FMCG brand strategy

The dispute highlights how packaging in FMCG categories, including hair oils, functions as a key identifier for consumers at the point of purchase. Where multiple brands compete with similar product claims such as cooling or ayurvedic positioning, courts may give weight to whether the overall pack design creates confusion. The order also underlines that a prominent house brand does not automatically neutralise passing off concerns if the remaining trade dress conveys a similar overall message. For companies, the case is a reminder that design choices around bottle shape, cap, colour combinations, and imagery can attract legal scrutiny when they echo a competitor’s established presentation.

Market impact: what an interim restraint changes operationally

An interim injunction typically forces a company to stop selling the product in the restrained packaging, which can disrupt distribution and inventory planning for that specific SKU and pack format. It can also require rapid packaging changes if the brand intends to continue the product with a non-infringing presentation. For competitors in the cooling oil segment, the decision signals that courts can protect a long-running trade dress even when individual design elements are common in the market. For investors and industry watchers, the immediate takeaway is not about revenue figures, which are not part of the court record here, but about execution risk when products are launched or expanded with look-and-feel choices that may invite litigation.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench has kept in place a temporary injunction restraining Dabur from selling “Cool King Thanda Tael” in packaging found deceptively similar to Emami’s “Navratna” trade dress. The case turns on the overall visual impression created by packaging elements taken together, and the court accepted Emami’s prima facie showing of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likely damage. The next steps depend on the progress and outcome of the underlying suit for permanent relief, which remains pending.