Yes. Packaging similarities can amount to trademark infringement or passing off in India, even when two products carry different brand names. Courts may examine the overall appearance of competing products, including their colours, labels, layout, shape, lettering, images and other distinctive features. The central question is whether the similarities are likely to confuse consumers or create an impression of commercial association.
For businesses, this makes packaging more than a design or marketing decision. It can become a significant intellectual property concern. A product may have a distinctive name yet still create legal risk if its packaging closely resembles the presentation of an established competitor. Understanding how Indian courts assess such disputes helps brand owners protect their identity and avoid costly conflicts.
1. What Is Trade Dress and Why Does It Matter?
Trade dress refers to the overall visual appearance and presentation of a product or its packaging. It may include the shape of a container, colour combinations, label designs, typography, illustrations, graphics and the arrangement of visual elements. Consumers often recognise products through these features before reading the brand name. A familiar colour scheme or distinctive container may immediately remind customers of a particular manufacturer. Over time, consistent use can create a connection between the packaging and the commercial source of the product.
Indian trademark law recognises several elements of trade dress. Section 2(1)(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 includes devices, labels, shapes, packaging and combinations of colours within the definition of a mark. Section 2(1)(zb) also recognises the shape of goods, packaging and colour combinations as possible components of a trademark, provided the statutory requirements are met. Therefore, packaging can receive trademark protection when it performs a distinctive identifying function. However, not every colour, container or decorative feature automatically qualifies for exclusive protection.
2. When Can Similar Packaging Amount to Trademark Infringement?
Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 deals with infringement of registered trademarks. It applies when an unauthorised person uses an identical or deceptively similar mark in the course of trade in circumstances covered by the section. Section 29(6) specifically recognises applying a registered mark to goods or their packaging as a form of trademark use. Section 29(7) also addresses unauthorised application of a registered mark to material intended for labelling or packaging goods, where the person applying it knew or had reason to believe the use was unauthorised.
A dispute may arise where a competitor reproduces a registered label, logo, distinctive device or protected packaging element. It may also involve a broader claim of passing off when the overall presentation misleads customers into believing one business’s products originate from another. Section 27(2) preserves the common law remedy of passing off. This is particularly relevant where a business has developed goodwill in its packaging but does not hold a registration covering every element of its trade dress.
3. How Do Indian Courts Assess Packaging Similarities?
Courts generally examine the overall impression created by competing products rather than treating every design element in isolation. They consider whether an ordinary consumer, with an imperfect recollection of the original product, could mistake one product for another or assume a commercial connection.
The assessment may consider the dominant colours, arrangement of labels, container shape, typography, illustrations, graphics and placement of brand information. The nature of the goods and the purchasing conditions also matter. For example, customers buying everyday household products may make quick purchasing decisions. They may recognise a product through its familiar colour scheme or packaging layout without carefully reading every word on the label. However, similarity alone does not establish infringement. Courts also consider whether the features relied upon are distinctive, whether they are common to the trade and whether the competing presentation is likely to mislead consumers.
4. Important Indian Judgments on Packaging and Trade Dress
Indian courts have developed important principles through disputes involving product wrappers, labels, colour combinations and packaging designs.
a) Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., (1972) 1 SCC 618
This Supreme Court decision remains a leading authority on deceptive similarity. The dispute concerned biscuit wrappers with similar colours, illustrations and general presentation. The Court held the competing wrappers should be assessed through their broad and essential features rather than by placing them side by side and searching for minor differences. The Court emphasised the importance of the overall impression and the possibility of a purchaser familiar with one product accepting the other by mistake. The decision remains relevant to modern packaging disputes because it recognises how visual similarities can influence purchasing decisions.
b) Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 478 (Del)
The Delhi High Court examined the use of a red and white colour combination on tooth powder containers. Although the competing products used different brand names, the plaintiff argued the defendant had copied its distinctive packaging presentation. The Court considered the colour arrangement, container shape and overall get up. It observed that consumers may identify products through their visual presentation without carefully examining the brand name. The decision illustrates how trade dress can support a passing off claim even when the word marks are different.
c) Rajnigandha v. Rajji Paap, CS(COMM) 1255/2018
The Delhi High Court considered similarities between the established RAJNIGANDHA packaging and a competing product sold under the name RAJJI PAAP. The Court found similarities in the colour scheme, font, labels and overall appearance. It also considered the established reputation of the RAJNIGANDHA mark. The decision demonstrates how courts may examine the combined effect of several copied features rather than treating each feature as an isolated design choice. The Court recognised the protection available to the well known RAJNIGANDHA mark and found a case of infringement and passing off.
d) Suncare Formulations Pvt. Ltd. v. Oreo Healthcare, CS(COMM) 12/2024, decided on 15 April 2025
The Delhi High Court considered the use of the HAEMOCAL and HEMOCAL marks alongside similarities in product packaging. It found substantial reproduction of the artistic features, layout and overall presentation of the plaintiff’s label. The Court also considered copyright protection in the packaging artwork. This decision is particularly relevant because packaging disputes may involve more than trademark rights. A copied label or graphic design can also raise copyright infringement concerns where the relevant artistic work is protected.
e) Zenith Spray and Aerosols Pvt. Ltd. v. Urmila Goel Tin Works and Packaging, order dated 28 July 2025
The Delhi High Court examined an alleged breach of an earlier injunction concerning similar product packaging. It found the defendant’s packaging continued to reproduce the plaintiff’s stylisation, colour combination and overall trade dress. Merely changing the product’s brand name did not resolve the similarity identified by the Court. The decision highlights an important practical point: changing a word mark may not be enough when the wider packaging continues to imitate protected visual features.
5. Can a Different Brand Name Prevent Packaging Infringement?
No, not necessarily. A business cannot automatically avoid liability simply by displaying a different brand name on packaging which closely imitates another product’s distinctive presentation. A prominent house mark may help distinguish products in some circumstances. However, it is not an automatic defence. Courts assess the complete visual impression, including the possibility of confusion among consumers who may not carefully examine the packaging.
The strength of the plaintiff’s claim will depend on the rights established in the relevant elements, the distinctiveness of the packaging and the surrounding commercial circumstances. For example, using a different brand name while reproducing a competitor’s distinctive colour arrangement, label structure and container design may still create a risk of passing off. A business should therefore develop its own visual identity rather than relying on minor changes to an existing design.
6. When Are Packaging Similarities Not Infringement?
Businesses should also understand the limits of trade dress protection. A company cannot automatically claim exclusive rights over every common colour, shape or decorative feature used in its industry. Some packaging elements may be functional, descriptive or common to the trade. Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act contains absolute grounds for refusal of registration, including certain non distinctive marks and shapes resulting from the nature of goods, necessary to obtain a technical result or giving substantial value to the goods.
Section 30 also provides limitations on the effect of registered trademark rights in specified circumstances. The Delhi High Court’s decision in FAO (COMM) 199/2021, decided on 15 December 2023, illustrates the importance of examining the actual arrangement of packaging features. The dispute involved lollipop packaging with similarities in certain elements, including a rose image. The Court found important differences in colour scheme and the placement of words, and held the similarities did not justify an injunction on the material before it. The lesson is clear: common elements do not become exclusive merely through use. The claimant must establish a legally protectable interest and show why the competing presentation crosses the line into infringement or passing off.
7. Can Packaging Also Receive Copyright Protection?
Yes. Packaging artwork may qualify for copyright protection where it constitutes an original artistic work under the Copyright Act, 1957. This protection may cover original illustrations, graphic compositions, label artwork and other creative elements. A competitor who copies protected artwork may face a copyright claim alongside trademark infringement or passing off proceedings. However, the legal tests are different. Trademark law focuses on identifying commercial origin and preventing relevant confusion or unauthorised use. Copyright law protects original expression. A business should assess each legal right separately rather than assuming a trademark registration automatically protects every aspect of its packaging.
8. What Can Brand Owners Do to Protect Their Packaging?
Brand owners should document their packaging development and maintain evidence of commercial use. Dated design files, invoices, product photographs, advertising campaigns, sales records and packaging samples can help establish adoption and reputation. Businesses should also consider registering distinctive labels, devices, shapes or other eligible packaging features where appropriate. A regular review of competing products, online marketplaces and new trademark applications can help identify suspicious similarities at an early stage.
When potential infringement is discovered, preserve evidence before contacting the other party. Record the relevant products, seller details, URLs, dates and distribution channels. A legal assessment can then determine whether a cease and desist notice, platform complaint, opposition or court action is appropriate. Businesses seeking to understand the legal position on trademark infringement in packaging should review both the statutory framework and the evidence supporting the distinctiveness of their packaging. Early advice from brand protection can help businesses assess their rights, develop distinctive packaging and respond proportionately when a competitor adopts a confusingly similar presentation.
Conclusion
Packaging similarities can create serious intellectual property risks in India, even when competing products carry different brand names. Indian courts have repeatedly recognised the importance of overall visual impression, distinctive trade dress and consumer perception when assessing infringement and passing off claims. For businesses, the safest approach is to develop an independent packaging identity and protect distinctive elements through suitable intellectual property rights. Trademark lawyers for brand protection can help businesses assess potential risks, safeguard distinctive packaging elements and take appropriate action against unauthorised use. Regular monitoring and early legal advice can also help prevent disputes and preserve the commercial value of an established brand.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Can copying product packaging amount to trademark infringement in India?
Yes. Copying a registered trademark appearing on packaging may amount to infringement under Section 29. Similar packaging may also support a passing off claim where the necessary elements of goodwill, misrepresentation and likely damage are established.
Can a company claim exclusive rights over a colour combination?
Potentially, if the combination is distinctive and satisfies the legal requirements. A business does not automatically obtain exclusive rights over a common colour or ordinary packaging arrangement merely by using it.
Does a different brand name protect a business from packaging infringement claims?
No. A different brand name does not automatically prevent infringement or passing off. Courts may examine the overall packaging and the likelihood of consumer confusion.
Is packaging protected under the Indian Trade Marks Act?
In a typical share acquisition, the target company remains the owner of its trademark registrations. HoaYes. The Act recognises labels, shapes, packaging and combinations of colours within its definition of a trademark. Protection depends on the relevant statutory requirements, including distinctiveness.wever, the buyer acquires the company with its existing legal obligations, disputes and intellectual property risks.
Can packaging infringement also involve copyright infringement?
Yes. Original label artwork, illustrations and graphic designs may qualify for copyright protection. Copying these elements may give rise to a separate copyright claim alongside trademark or passing off proceedings.
What remedies are available for packaging trademark infringement?
Depending on the facts, a court may grant temporary or permanent injunctions, damages, an account of profits and delivery of infringing material for destruction. Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act addresses civil remedies.
How can a business avoid packaging infringement disputes?
Businesses should conduct clearance searches, develop distinctive packaging, document original design work and review competing products before launch. Legal review can help identify risks before packaging reaches the market.
