Introduction: The case of Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited represents a significant battle in the competitive landscape of ayurvedic personal care products in India, particularly in the therapeutic cooling oil segment. Emami, the established market leader with its iconic Navratna Oil, alleged that Dabur’s newly launched Cool King Thanda Tael product copied essential elements of its trade dress, bottle design, and overall get-up, amounting to passing off. The dispute centered on whether the defendant’s product created a false association with the plaintiff’s long-standing brand, potentially deceiving consumers and diluting Emami’s goodwill. This interim application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC highlights the critical role of trade dress protection in passing off actions, where visual similarity and consumer perception play pivotal roles in establishing misrepresentation.
Factual Background:Emami Limited, founded in 1974 as the flagship of the Emami Group, has been a pioneer in ayurvedic medicines and personal care products since 1982. Its flagship product, Navratna Oil, was launched in January 1989 with the memorable catchphrase “Thanda Thanda Cool Cool.” Over three decades of continuous and uninterrupted use, Navratna has become synonymous with therapeutic cooling oil, commanding a dominant market share of 66% in the segment as of 2022. The product offers multi-purpose benefits, including relief, relaxation, and rejuvenation, and enjoys immense consumer trust across India and export markets.
Emami secured multiple trademark registrations for marks such as “NAVRATNA,” “NAVRATNA OIL,” “THANDA THANDA COOL COOL,” “COOL COOL,” “HALKA HALKA COOL COOL,” and others in Classes 3 and 5. These registrations date back to as early as 1998 and cover labels, devices, and phrases associated with cooling sensations.
The product is packaged in a distinctive red trade dress, featuring elements like hibiscus/china rose flowers, ice crystals, ayurvedic herbs, and a saintly figure, which has remained largely consistent despite minor updates over time. Emami’s bottles are uniquely designed and registered under the Designs Act, 2000 (Registrations 253389 and 279325). Copyright registrations further protect the labels (e.g., A-58209/2000 for Himani Navratna Oil label).
The plaintiff invested heavily in promotion through television, newspapers, hoardings, and other media since 1989-90. Sales turnover figures demonstrate exponential growth, starting from INR 14.77 lakhs in 1990-91 to INR 58,562.25 lakhs in 2021-22, totaling over INR 727,085.81 lakhs. This established immense goodwill, with Navratna identified exclusively with Emami.
In June 2023, Emami discovered Dabur’s Cool King Thanda Tael, launched in transparent red bottles of similar shape and configuration to Emami’s registered designs. The packaging adopted a red color scheme, featured “Thanda Tael,” “Cool King,” and “Cool Oil” marks, and included similar visual elements like hibiscus, ice, and ayurvedic herbs. Emami alleged deliberate copying to pass off the product as associated with Navratna, causing confusion and potential damage to its reputation.
Procedural Background: Emami filed CS(COMM) 532/2023 seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for passing off, design infringement, and copyright violation. In I.A. No. 14557/2023, an ex parte interim injunction was granted on 09.08.2023 restraining Dabur from selling Cool King Thanda Tael in the impugned trade dress or any deceptively similar variant. Dabur appealed in FAO(OS)(COMM) 171/2023, and the Division Bench set aside the order on 21.08.2023, directing that Dabur be given an opportunity to file a reply before adjudication. After affidavits and hearings, by order dated 29.02.2024, Emami confined arguments to passing off, reserving other claims for the suit. The matter was re-heard, culminating in the judgment dated 31.01.2026.
Reasoning and Decision of Court:The court examined the plaintiff’s established goodwill, prior use since 1989, extensive registrations, and overwhelming sales evidence, which demonstrated Navratna’s household status and secondary meaning in the cooling oil market. The red trade dress, bottle shape, and elements like “Thanda,” cooling imagery, and herbal motifs were deemed distinctive through long association with Emami. The court noted that trade dress protection extends to overall visual impression, not isolated features, and common elements (e.g., red color or herbs) become protectable when combined uniquely.
Dabur’s adoption of near-identical bottle design, red packaging, phonetic similarity in marks (“Thanda Tael” vs “Thanda Thanda Cool Cool”), and visual cues created a high likelihood of confusion among average consumers seeking cooling benefits. The court found mala fide intent in the deliberate copying to ride on Emami’s reputation.
Prima facie case of passing off was established, with misrepresentation leading to likelihood of damage through diverted sales and reputational harm. Balance of convenience favored Emami, as irreparable injury would ensue without restraint, while Dabur could continue sales under non-similar packaging. The court granted interim injunction, restraining Dabur from using the impugned trade dress or any deceptively similar variant pending suit disposal.
Point of Law Settled in the Case: This judgment reinforces that in passing off actions, trade dress enjoys robust protection where long user has endowed it with distinctiveness and goodwill, even absent direct trademark infringement. Courts must assess overall get-up and consumer impression rather than dissecting individual elements.
Phonetic, visual, and structural similarities in packaging, especially in FMCG products purchased on impulse, suffice to establish deception. The requirement of prior opportunity to defendant in interim matters is procedural fairness, but does not dilute the threshold for injunction where prima facie case, balance, and irreparable harm are satisfied.
Case Title: Emami Limited Vs. Dabur India Limited
Date of Order: 31.01.2026
Case Number: CS(COMM) 532/2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:785
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
Disclaimer:Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advice as it 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 this Article**
1. Trade Dress Passing Off: Delhi High Court Restrains Dabur in Navratna vs Cool King Dispute
2. Cooling Oil Wars: Analytical Breakdown of Emami v. Dabur Interim Injunction on Trade Dress
3. Protecting Goodwill in Ayurvedic Products: Key Takeaways from Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited
4.Passing off through deceptively similar trade dress
**Suitable Tags**
passing off, trade dress, trademark infringement, cooling hair oil, Navratna Oil, Dabur Cool King, ayurvedic products, interim injunction, Delhi High Court, intellectual property, goodwill, deceptive similarity, FMCG packaging, Emami v Dabur,
**Headnote**
Delhi High Court granted injunction against Dabur’s Cool King Thanda Tael for passing off through deceptively similar red trade dress, bottle design, and marks imitating Emami’s Navratna Oil. The judgment underscores trade dress protection based on acquired distinctiveness in the therapeutic cooling oil market.
====
The case concerns a passing off action by Emami Limited against Dabur India Limited regarding the trade dress of cooling hair oil products. Emami, launching Navratna Oil in 1989 with the slogan "Thanda Thanda Cool Cool" and dominant red trade dress featuring a crown device, claimed market leadership (66% share in 2022) and multiple trademark registrations for "Navratna", "Thanda Thanda Cool Cool" variants, and associated get-up.
Emami alleged Dabur's "Cool King Thanda Tael" product, launched later, copied the overall trade dress including red bottle, crown-like element, cooling claims, and similar get-up to deceive consumers and ride on Emami's goodwill.
Emami filed CS(COMM) 532/2023 seeking injunction among other reliefs. Single Judge initially granted ex parte interim injunction on 09.08.2023 restraining Dabur from using the impugned trade dress, but Division Bench set it aside on 21.08.2023 for lack of opportunity to Dabur to file reply, remanding for fresh consideration after hearing.
Plaintiff confined arguments to passing off for interim relief. After detailed submissions, evidence of sales, advertisements, consumer surveys, and comparison of packaging, the Court found Emami established prima facie goodwill and reputation in distinctive red trade dress with crown and cooling indicia through long prior use since 1989.
Dabur's product adopted similar overall impression creating likelihood of confusion and passing off, with balance of convenience favoring Emami due to potential irreparable harm. Interim injunction granted restraining Dabur from using or selling products in the impugned trade dress or deceptively similar get-up pending suit disposal, without prejudice to merits.
Law Point Settled:
In passing off claims involving trade dress of cooling oils, prior extensive use establishing goodwill in distinctive elements like color scheme, device (crown), and cooling slogans creates prima facie case for protection even without word mark infringement, where overall visual impression likely causes confusion.
Ex parte interim injunctions in IP matters may be set aside if defendant not given opportunity to file reply, emphasizing natural justice, but fresh hearing can restore restraint upon prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience.
Comparative elements in packaging (color, device, descriptive cooling phrases) can support passing off if intentional copying exploits plaintiff's reputation, tilting interim relief in plaintiff's favor despite common descriptive terms.
Case Title: Emami Limited Vs. Dabur India Limited: 31.01.2026: CS(COMM) 532/2023:2026:DHC:785: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.
Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
======
