Protection Of Trade Dress In India


According to the current trend, any new product which is being launched in the market has some sort of distinct packaging as it is considered imperative for the purposes of distinguishing their products from others and it also helps in attracting a larger customer base. This distinct packaging assists the consumers in associating a product with a particular brand which helps in developing the goodwill and reputation of the brand. However, numerous parties have tried to replicate these distinctive packaging in their own product with the malafide intention of misusing the goodwill and reputation of the already established brand.

The concept of trade dress can be interpreted within the definition of trademark, which has been defined under Section 2(zb) of the Indian Trademark Act which prescribes it as “a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours”.Additionally, ‘mark’ has also been defined under Section 2(m) of the act to include the shape of goods, packaging etc.

Scope for Protection of Trade Dress in India

Under the trademark law, the trade dress encompasses the visual aspect of a product and it comprises several distinctive features with respect to the shape, size, packaging, colour combination, textures, graphics etc. Even though there is no separate provision which specifically deals with ‘Trade Dress’, in the Indian Trademark Act, 1999, it is offered protection under the common law of passing off which includes the aspect of packaging, shape of goods, colour combination etc. For the purposes of qualifying under the common law of passing off, the packaging and the design of the product should have some kind of inherent distinctiveness or the product could also have acquired a distinctive character from its presence in the market over a considerable amount of time. The main objective behind providing protection to trade dress is to prevent the untrained eyes of the customers from getting deceived who might purchase the deceptively similar product with a similar packaging instead of the original product.

As the law related to trade dress in India is still very underdeveloped and in a very nascent stage, the judiciary plays a very significant role in the development of laws related to trade dress and providing protection to the same. One of the very first case which provided protection to trade dress was Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health &Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.[1] (2003), the issue before the court was regarding the red and white colour combination being used for the purposes of packaging of the products which was likely to deceive the consumers. The court in this accentuated on the fact that for the purposes of determing any infringement, the overall similarity in the product packaging should be taken into consideration and not the dissimilarity. It was also established that the presence of any actual confusion is not necessary as the mere likelihood of confusion is sufficient for proceeding with the action of passing off. This case laid down the groundwork for the trade dress protection in India.

In the case of Ferrero Spa & Nr v. M/S Ruchi International &Anr[2] (2018), the defendant was importing chocolates from China and sold these chocolates under the name of ‘Golden Passion’. However, the issue which arose before the court was that the packaging of these chocolates was almost identical to the packaging of the ‘Ferrero Rocher’ chocolates which is very well known in the market. Justice Khanna, in this case emphasized on the fact that the defendant by using a very similar/identical packaging for the chocolates has caused severe damage to the trade dress and mark of the petitioner. Thus, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in the favour of the petitioners awarding them damages for a total sum of ten lakh Rupees on account of infringement of trade dress.

In another landmark case of Christian Louboutin Sas v. Mr. Pawan Kumar and Ors[3] (2017), the petitioner wasthe owner of aluxury shoe brand and the issue at hand was pertaining to his brand of shoes which were well-known in the market to have red soles. Moreover, the mark ‘RED SOLE’ was already assigned to Christian Louboutin. The defendant in this case was a local shoe manufacturer who was also using red soles in their shoes. The Delhi High Court in this case for the first time declared the trade dress to possess the status of a well-known mark similar to that of an actual trademark. However, subsequently in the case of Christian Louboutin Sas v. Abudekar and Ors[4]., the court refused the grant of trademark for the red coloured soles of the heels on the ground that any mark which consists of any single colour cannot be considered for the purpose of registration as a mark since the trademark act requires the existence of combination of colours as per the requirements of section 2(m) of the Trademark Act, 1999.

Furthermore, it needs to be understood that for the purposes of qualifying for infringement of any trade dress, the existence of likelihood of confusion is considered imperative. In the case of Merwans Confectioners Pvt Ltd v. M/s Sugar Street &Ors[5] (2019), the plaintiff claimed that they had developed an inherently distinctive trade dress for their mark of ‘Merwans’ which made their product easily identifiable. The plaintiff had earlier entered in a franchisee agreement with the defendant, however, the same was subsequently cancelled due to some violation on behalf of the defendants. The issue which arose before the court was whether the defendants can continue to use the trade dress of the applicant after the franchisee agreement has been terminated. The court in this case opined that as per the law concerning trade dress, any product feature which is merely aesthetic in nature with no source-identifying role cannot be provided with the exclusive rights. The Bombay High court in this case opined that for the purposes of determining any infringement with respect to the Trade Dress, the test which is applied pertains to the aspect of likelihood of misunderstanding, deception or any kind of confusion which might affect the buying decision of the end consumers. This judgment modified the criteria with respect to the infringement of trade dress and set a much higher bar which mandatorily required the existence of some kind of misunderstanding in the naive minds of the consumers.


The concept of Trade Dress is still evolving in India and the courts have played a crucial role in the development of the laws pertaining to trade dress. The trade dress protection is available for shapes of bottles, showroom designs etc. Protecting trade dress is imperative as it helps in providing a distinctive characteristic to the products in the markets which helps the end consumer in identifying them and distinguishing them from the other products in the market.

The essential elements of the trade dress include the shape, size, colour combination, overall packaging of the product etc. along with the characteristics of a trademark which requires it to have a distinctive feature and it should be capable of graphical representation. Also, the scope of trade dress protection is comparatively a lot broader than the protection offered by the trademark law. This can be attributed to the fact that trade dress protection not only protects the aspects pertaining to the product design and packaging which are not registerable under the trademark law, but it also focuses on the entire brand image of the product.

Author: Siddharth Raj Choudhary – a Student of School of Law (Bennett University), an intern at IIPRD, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email


[1]2003 (27) PTC 478 Del

[2]CS(COMM) 76/2018

[3]CS COMM–714/2016

[4]RFA (OS)(COMM) 13/2018 & CM 29064/2018

[5] CS(L) NO.1100 OF 2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

two × 2 =


  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010