Anil Srichand Kundnani Vs Pruthvi Ishwar Patel, Proprietor of Maa Bahucharaji Sales & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 08 June 2026 | Case No.: Interim Application (L) No. 13908 of 2024 in Commercial IP Suit No. 434 of 2025 | Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:12554 | Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Commercial Division | Judge: Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh
The Court considered a dispute concerning copyright infringement and passing off in relation to the artistic label and trade dress of packaged tea products. The case arose from allegations that the defendants had adopted the label mark “UTSAHA”, which was alleged to be a slavish reproduction of the plaintiff’s “UMANG” label and artwork.
The principal question before the Court was whether the defendants’ label and packaging infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in its artistic work and amounted to passing off, notwithstanding objections regarding the validity of the plaintiff’s copyright registration and trademark applications.
After examining the material on record and the submissions of the parties, Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh observed that the rival labels were deceptively similar in their overall get-up, colour scheme, arrangement of features and stylized presentation, and that the defendants had failed to establish independent creation of the impugned artwork. The Court held that copyright protection extends to the expression of an idea embodied in the artistic work and that substantial similarity, judged from the perspective of a lay observer, constitutes infringement. The Court further emphasized that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act is concerned with similarity of artistic works and not with conflicting word marks.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the interim application and confirmed the ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s original artwork and from passing off their products as those of the plaintiff.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice, as it is based on limited information and is intended solely for general informational purposes.
====
Bombay High Court Protects “UMANG” Tea Packaging: Copyright and Passing Off Action Succeeds Against Alleged Imitation of Trade Dress
Introduction
The protection of packaging, labels, and overall trade dress has become increasingly important in modern commerce, particularly in the food and consumer goods industry where visual appearance significantly influences consumer choice. The decision of the Bombay High Court in Anil Srichand Kundnani, Proprietor of Bhagyalaxmi Tea Centre v. Pruthvi Ishwar Patel, Proprietor of Maa Bahucharaji Sales & Anr. is an important ruling dealing with copyright in artistic labels and the law of passing off.
The case involved allegations that the defendants had copied the overall packaging and artistic features of the plaintiff's well-known “UMANG” tea products and marketed their own tea under the label “UTSAHA”. Apart from issues relating to copyright infringement and passing off, the dispute also raised interesting questions concerning the interplay between the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the effect of refusal of trademark applications, ownership of artistic works, and the relevance of copyright registrations obtained by rival parties.
The judgment is significant for businesses dealing with packaged goods, intellectual property practitioners, and brand owners because it reiterates that copyright protection extends not merely to ideas but to the manner in which those ideas are expressed through distinctive artistic arrangements and trade dress.
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiff, proprietor of Bhagyalaxmi Tea Centre, claimed to have adopted the mark “UMANG” in 2009 for manufacturing and marketing premium packaged tea and related products. Over the years, several trademark registrations and applications relating to “UMANG”, “UMANGAM”, and associated device marks were obtained. The plaintiff also secured copyright registration in respect of one of the artistic labels.
According to the plaintiff, the label and artwork had been conceived and created by him and had acquired substantial goodwill through continuous use and extensive sales. Sales turnover for the period from 2021 to 2024 was stated to be approximately ₹19.58 crores.
In January 2024, the plaintiff allegedly discovered tea products marketed under the label “UTSAHA”. A complaint was lodged and a cease-and-desist notice dated 15 February 2024 was issued to the defendants. Investigation revealed that the first defendant had applied for registration of the “UTSAHA” device mark on 27 June 2023.
Commercial IP Suit No. 434 of 2025 was instituted before the Commercial Division of the Bombay High Court seeking reliefs for copyright infringement and passing off. On 14 June 2024, the Court granted ex parte ad interim protection restraining the defendants from using the impugned label and directed disclosure by the defendants.
The defendants thereafter filed affidavits opposing continuation of the interim order. They alleged suppression of material facts by the plaintiff and contended that the plaintiff's copyright registration itself was invalid. After hearing the parties, the matter was reserved on 10 April 2026 and judgment was pronounced on 8 June 2026.
Dispute Before the Court
The principal issue before the Court was whether the defendants had copied the plaintiff's original artistic work embodied in the “UMANG” tea label and whether such copying amounted to copyright infringement and passing off.
The plaintiff contended that the impugned “UTSAHA” packaging was a slavish reproduction of its own label and that the overall colour combination, arrangement of features, depiction of tea cups and cardamom, stylized fonts and trade dress had been copied.
The defendants argued that the plaintiff had concealed material facts, including refusal of an earlier trademark application. They further submitted that the plaintiff was not the owner of copyright because the registration certificate mentioned another person as the author of the artistic work and no assignment deed had been produced.
It was also argued that the plaintiff's copyright registration was invalid in view of Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. According to the defendants, the common features such as green colour, tea cups and cardamom were generic elements ordinarily used in tea packaging and therefore no monopoly could be claimed over them.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Court
Upon comparing the rival products, the Court found striking similarities between the competing labels. It observed that the background consisting of shaded green colour, the bed of cardamoms, placement of the tea cup, stylized font, colour arrangement and positioning of various elements were almost identical. The Court concluded that the dispute was not confined merely to common features such as tea cups or cardamom but involved copying of the entire trade dress.
The Court held that copyright protects the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. While the concept of depicting tea and cardamom may be common, the particular manner in which those elements had been arranged and expressed constituted protectable artistic expression.
An important circumstance noticed by the Court was that the defendants themselves had opposed registration of the plaintiff's “UMANGAM” label by alleging deceptive similarity with their own label. According to the Court, such opposition amounted to an implicit admission that the rival artworks were deceptively similar.
The defendants had argued that the copyright certificate showed a third party as the author and no assignment deed had been produced. The Court rejected this argument on the ground that such a defence had not been pleaded in the affidavits and could not be raised for the first time during oral arguments. Since ownership pleaded by the plaintiff had never been specifically denied, the defendants could not advance an entirely new case at the hearing stage.
The Court referred to Rule 70(3) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, which permits an owner of copyright to seek registration upon furnishing a No Objection Certificate from the author. Since registration had been granted, the Court presumed, at the interlocutory stage, that all necessary documents had been produced before the Registrar.
Interestingly, the Court noticed that the defendants' own copyright certificate also showed a third party as author and no assignment deed had been placed on record. Therefore, the same objection raised against the plaintiff would equally affect the defendants.
The Court then examined Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which requires a certificate from the Registrar of Trade Marks certifying that no identical or deceptively similar trademark application has been made by a third party. The Court held that the purpose of the proviso is to avoid conflict between competing claims over identical artistic works.
According to the Court, the expression used in Section 45 focuses on similarity of artistic works and applications made by third parties. Since the trademark applications in question had been filed by the plaintiff itself and the objection raised by the Trade Marks Registry concerned the word mark “UMANG” under Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the copyright registration could not be regarded as invalid.
The Court emphasized that copyright infringement is determined by applying the substantial similarity test. A lay observer examining both products would immediately notice the resemblance between them. The Court held that the defendants had failed to explain how such extensive similarities had arisen.
The Court also observed that the defendants had obtained copyright registration only in respect of a cropped version of the artwork and not for the entire packaging actually used by them. Several features appearing on the actual packaging and resembling the plaintiff's artwork were absent from the registered artwork. The absence of any explanation for this discrepancy persuaded the Court to infer dishonest conduct.
The Court further held that the plaintiff had established goodwill and reputation in the market since 2009 and had demonstrated substantial sales figures. Consequently, use of deceptively similar artwork by the defendants constituted misrepresentation likely to cause damage to the plaintiff's business.
While considering authorities cited by the parties, the Court referred to Sanjay Soya Private Limited v. Narayani Trading Company, IA (L) No. 5011 of 2020 decided on 9 March 2021; Hiralal Prabhudas v. Ganesh Trading Co., 1983 SCC OnLine Bom 284; ITC Limited v. Britannia Industries Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 6972; Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 1005; Xotik Frujus Pvt. Ltd. v. Bubalus Beverages; Marico Ltd. v. Zee Hygiene Products Pvt. Ltd.; Hugo Boss Trademark Management GmbH v. Sandeep Arora, 2023:DHC:8930; Jagdish Gopal Kamath v. Lime & Chilli Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd., MANU/MH/0384/2015; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142 and Hygienic Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP, (2025) 1 HCC (Bom) 25.
The defendants had relied upon Abdul Cadur Allibhoy v. Mahomedally Hyderally, Vol. III Bombay Law Reporter 218. The Court held that the principles laid down therein were not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Final Decision of the Court
The Bombay High Court held that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case of copyright infringement and passing off. It found that the impugned “UTSAHA” label constituted a substantial and slavish reproduction of the plaintiff's original “UMANG” artwork.
The Court confirmed the ad interim injunction granted on 14 June 2024 and made the interim application absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c). Consequently, the defendants were restrained from using the impugned label and from infringing the plaintiff's artistic work and passing off their products as those of the plaintiff.
Point of Law Settled
The judgment reiterates that copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the underlying idea itself. Common elements may individually be incapable of protection, but their distinctive arrangement and overall trade dress can constitute protectable artistic expression.
The decision also clarifies that refusal of a trademark application does not automatically invalidate copyright registration under Section 45 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The proviso to Section 45 is concerned with conflicting claims by third parties and not with applications filed by the same applicant.
The ruling further emphasizes the importance of the substantial similarity test and the perspective of an ordinary observer in determining copyright infringement. It reinforces that dishonest imitation of overall packaging and trade dress can give rise to both copyright infringement and passing off even where individual features are commonly used in the trade.
=====
