Case Title: Honasa Consumer Limited versus Cloud Wellness Private Limited & Anr.
Order Date: 26 September 2025
Case Number: CSCOMM 483/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:4832025
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Fact
The Plaintiff, Honasa Consumer Limited, is engaged in the marketing and sale of beauty, skin care, personal care, and baby products, sold both in India and internationally. Defendant No. 1, Cloud Wellness Pvt. Ltd., operates in the same product segment, with Defendant No. 2 being one of its directors. The Plaintiff markets a product line under THE DERMA CO. brand, which uses a distinct visual identity involving unique color schemes, stylized layouts, and packaging termed as its “Subject Trade Dress”. The Defendants market products under DERMATOUCH, whose trade dress is alleged by the Plaintiff to be deceptively similar and a slavish imitation of the Plaintiff's packaging. The Plaintiff claims copyright in its trade dress, having commissioned a design agency in 2019 for the artwork and used the designs since January 2020. The Plaintiff believes this trade dress has attained public recognition and acts as a source identifier. The dispute centers around whether Defendants have copied this trade dress, thereby infringing the Plaintiff's copyright and passing off their business as that of the Plaintiff’s, riding on the goodwill and reputation vested in THE DERMA CO mark[1].
Procedural Details
The Plaintiff filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction against the Defendants under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The relief requested was to restrain the Defendants from using the impugned trade dress for their beauty and skincare products, asserting infringement of copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957 and passing off under common law. The Defendants, in response, opposed the interim relief, presenting their arguments and placing reliance on material and case law to negate the Plaintiff’s claims. Both sides were represented by senior advocates and placed extensive facts, precedents, and legal principles before the Hon'ble Court[1].
Dispute
The core of the dispute is whether the Defendants' product packaging replicates, imitates, or is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s protected trade dress. The Plaintiff asserts ownership of original artistic work in the trade dress and claims exclusive rights under Sections 13, 14, and 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff further relies on the doctrine of passing off, arguing that the Defendants are riding on its goodwill through substantially similar packaging. The Plaintiff argues it has invested heavily in advertising and promotion, resulting in distinctiveness and secondary meaning acquired by its trade dress. The Defendants challenge this by questioning the originality of the Plaintiff’s trade dress, claiming prior existence of similar designs in the market before the Plaintiff’s adoption, and highlighting four other companies with similar packaging as early as 2010-2019. They argue the Plaintiff’s color combination and layout are neither unique nor inventive, thus incapable of protection as original artistic work. They further submit that consumers buy such products based on quality, ingredients, and price, not packaging, highlighting their own investment in branding and marketing. The Defendants contend their adoption was bona fide, driven by market norms, not as an imitation. They assert ongoing honest co-existence in the market for over four years, with no evidence presented by the Plaintiff of actual confusion among consumers, and argue that any loss, if caused, is compensable monetarily[1].
Detailed Reasoning, Legal Provisions, and Citations
The Hon'ble Court began its analysis by reiterating that interim injunctions are granted when the existence and violation of asserted legal rights are contested and uncertain. The object is to prevent irreparable injury to the Plaintiff pending trial, subject to three tests: (i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience, and (iii) irreparable injury as required under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC.
In considering the test of deceptive similarity, the Court placed special emphasis on the nature of the skincare industry, where consumer choices are primarily ingredient-driven rather than packaging-driven. Product packaging, including color schemes or layouts, play a limited role compared to formulations and brand names depicted prominently on each product.
The Court examined precedents supporting both sides. The Plaintiff cited Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health (2003 SCC OnLine Del 1005), Cadbury India Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products (2007 SCC OnLine Del 841), Seven Towns Ltd. v. Kiddiland (2016 SCC OnLine Del 5168), Marico Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar (2018 SCC OnLine Del 13412), Marico Ltd. v. Zee Hygiene Products (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2541), Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd. (2007 6 SCC 1), S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai (2016 2 SCC 683), Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah (2002 3 SCC 65), Midas Hygiene Industries P Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia (2004 3 SCC 90), Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd. (2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744), KRBL Ltd. v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani (2025 SCC OnLine Del 198), Sanjay Soya P Ltd. v. Narayani Trading Co. (2021 SCC OnLine Bom 407), Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blender Distillers Pvt. Ltd. (2015 SCC OnLine Del 10164)[1].
The Court clarified that protection under the Copyright Act, 1957, is for original artistic works as defined under Section 2(c). The Plaintiff’s claim of originality was challenged on grounds of prior art, with Defendants presenting examples of similar packaging by “Hylamide” since 2015, and other companies since 2010, and arguing that mere juxtaposition of two colors cannot be characterized as original unless distinctive creative authorship is proved. The Court referenced industry standards, the role of color theory, and the widespread adoption of similar color schemes for specific product purposes.
On passing off, the Court reiterated the classic trinity—goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage—as enunciated in Heinz Italia, Laxmikant V. Patel, Syed Mohideen, and elaborated by House of Lords and Australian High Court decisions. The burden lies on the Plaintiff to prove its get-up had acquired sufficient recognition such that consumers would likely be misled, even with the Defendants’ distinct brand name DERMATOUCH displayed. The Court cited Campbell Soup Co. v Armour Co. (81 USPQ 430), Kellogg Company v. Pravin Kumar Bhadabhai (1996 PTC 16 187), Schwappers Ltd. v. Gibbens (1905 22 RPC), Burford v. Mowling (1908 8 CLR 212), Parkdale Pty Limited V. Euxu Pty Limited (1982 149 CLR 191), Red Bull Gmbh V. Mean Fiddler (2004 EWHC 991), Rizla V. Bryant May (1986 RPC 389), and the summary by Professor Wadlow.
The Court similarly discussed that secondary meaning is critical, and colour combinations or packaging are registrable only when associated with a distinct single source. No material was provided by the Plaintiff to show exclusive association or substantial public confusion since launch.
On delay and coexistence, it was found that both parties had operated in the market for four years, and no concrete evidence of confusion or decline in Plaintiff’s sales was presented. Injunctions are not typically granted where parties have co-existed openly unless sustained prejudice can be demonstrated. Cases such as Britannica Industries Ltd. v. ITC Ltd., Samsonite Corp v. Vijay Sales, ITC Ltd. V. CG Foods India Pvt. Ltd., Himalaya Drug Co. v. SBL Ltd. (2010 SCC OnLine Del 2206), and Uniply Industries Ltd. v. Unicorn Plywood Pvt. Ltd. were cited to support this position[1].
The Court concluded that factors like the specialized, well-informed class of buyers; the absence of actual confusion over a prolonged period; the prominent use of distinct brand names; and disputed questions about originality and prior adoption would require thorough evidence, which could only be examined in full trial, not at the interim stage.
Judgment and Decision
After careful consideration, the Court held that the Plaintiff had not made out a clear prima facie case for an interim injunction. The disputed facts—originality, distinctiveness, prior use—demanded evidence and could only be resolved at trial. The prolonged market coexistence, lack of customer confusion, and the presence of distinct marks led to the conclusion that no irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff without the injunction, and any loss could be compensated monetarily.
The application for interim injunction was dismissed, and the matter was listed for further proceedings in January 2026[1].
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles for the Legal Article
1. Copyright and Trade Dress: Judicial Analysis in Beauty Industry Packaging Disputes
2. Distinctiveness in Packaging: Lessons from Honasa v. Cloud Wellness
3. Passing Off and Market Coexistence in Indian Cosmetic Brands: A Simple Legal Review
4. Colour Combinations, Trade Dress & Copyright: Understanding Delhi High Court’s Approach
5. Packaging Disputes and the Limits of Copyright: An Analytical Case Study
No comments:
Post a Comment