Emami v. Dabur: Delhi HC Grants Injunction on Deceptive Trade Dress

Background and Material Facts

New to Trademark Law? Start with our complete Trademark Law Guide.

The case of Emami Limited vs. Dabur India Limited, adjudicated by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court under case number FAO(OS) (COMM)-177/2026, concerns a high-stakes commercial dispute involving allegations of trademark infringement and passing off in the cooling hair oil segment. The Appellant, Emami Limited, initiated legal proceedings against the Respondent, Dabur India Limited, seeking to protect its proprietary trade dress and intellectual property associated with its cooling oil product.

The Appellant contended that the Respondent launched a competing product, marketed as “Dabur Cool King Thanda Tel,” which utilized a trade dress and visual packaging deceptively similar to that of the Appellant’s own product. Emami Limited argued that this conduct not only infringed upon its registered trademarks but also constituted an act of passing off, aimed at capitalizing on the reputation and consumer goodwill established by the Appellant in the market. Consequently, the Appellant filed a suit before the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, seeking a permanent injunction, along with an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 14557/2023) under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). [Contextual Hint: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 allow a court to grant temporary injunctions to prevent the wastage, damage, or alienation of property, or the commission of an injury to a plaintiff during the pendency of a suit.]

The Learned Single Judge, in a judgment dated 31.01.2026, examined the merits of the interim relief sought. While the court analyzed the evidence presented, the subsequent appeal reached the Division Bench, which was tasked with reviewing the lower court’s decision regarding the balance of convenience and the potential for irreparable injury to the Appellant.

Legal Issues

The core of the dispute revolved around the following legal issues:

• Whether the Respondent’s trade dress for “Dabur Cool King Thanda Tel” is deceptively similar to the Appellant’s established trade dress, thereby infringing upon the Appellant’s rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. [Contextual Hint: The Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides for the registration and protection of trademarks and prevents the use of marks that are identical or deceptively similar to registered marks.]
• Whether the actions of the Respondent constitute “passing off,” specifically if the overall get-up and visual presentation of the product are likely to deceive the average consumer into believing that the Respondent’s product is associated with, or manufactured by, the Appellant.
• Whether the balance of convenience warranted the grant of an ad-interim injunction in favor of the Appellant.
• Whether the Appellant would suffer “irreparable injury”—a legal threshold requiring the claimant to prove that money damages cannot adequately compensate for the harm—if the injunction were denied.

Court’s Reasoning and Findings

The Division Bench, upon reviewing the records and the lower court’s decision, focused heavily on the equitable principles governing the grant of interim injunctions. The court emphasized that in matters of intellectual property, the primary consideration is to prevent consumer confusion. If the packaging of the Respondent’s product is found to be “deceptively similar” to the Appellant’s trade dress, the court must intervene to protect the integrity of the market and the rights of the intellectual property owner.

A significant portion of the court’s analysis was dedicated to the “balance of convenience” test. The court noted that the Single Judge had, in the order dated 31.01.2026, already undertaken a preliminary assessment of this balance. The Division Bench observed that the relief sought by the Appellant was essential to preserve the status quo. The court firmly rejected the notion that the Respondent would suffer irreparable harm by complying with an injunction. Instead, it reasoned that the harm caused to the Appellant by allowing a confusingly similar product to remain in the market—potentially eroding years of brand equity—far outweighed any operational inconvenience the Respondent might face by adjusting its marketing or packaging.

The bench explicitly noted, “We are also of the considered opinion that no irreparable injury will be suffered by the Respondent; if it finds the directions a… [sic].” This finding underscores the judicial stance that where a prima facie case of infringement is established, the protection of the registered proprietor’s rights takes precedence. The court’s logic suggests that the Respondent’s potential economic impact from a rebranding effort is a predictable business risk, whereas the damage to the Appellant’s brand identity is intangible and often impossible to quantify or reverse once market saturation with a copycat product occurs.

Also Read: Calcutta HC Returns ITC Plaint for Skipping Section 12A Mediation

Decision and Significance

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in this appeal serves as a reaffirmation of the protective role courts play in intellectual property disputes involving fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG). By affirming the necessity of analyzing the “balance of convenience” early in the proceedings, the court has signaled a protective stance toward established brand identities.

The significance of this judgment lies in the Court’s pragmatic application of the test for irreparable injury. Practitioners should note that the court did not view the Respondent’s potential loss as a barrier to granting the injunction. Instead, the court prioritized the preservation of the Appellant’s established market presence. This decision underscores that for plaintiffs in the FMCG sector, robust documentation of trade dress and clear evidence of deceptive similarity are critical components in securing immediate judicial intervention.

The court’s reliance on the principles articulated under the CPC for interim relief reinforces that the courts will not hesitate to issue directions that may force a defendant to cease the sale or distribution of products featuring infringing packaging when the likelihood of public confusion is high. This case provides a clear template for future litigation where parties are locked in disputes over look-alike products, emphasizing that the burden of proving that the defendant will suffer “irreparable injury” is a high bar that is rarely met in the face of a strong case of trademark infringement or passing off.

In conclusion, the decision mandates a disciplined approach for both plaintiffs and defendants. For plaintiffs, the judgment highlights the importance of timely action and the clear articulation of how their brand identity is being diluted. For defendants, it serves as a warning that the adoption of trade dress that mimics competitors, even under a different brand name, carries significant legal risk that can lead to court-mandated market withdrawals. This case will likely be cited in future proceedings where the “balance of convenience” in trademark litigation is contested.