Trade Dress Protection in India
Written by Anvi Garg, a fourth-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.
Introduction
In the increasingly competitive market, the appearance of a product plays a major role as it allows the seller to distinguish the product from competitors and create a long-lasting impression on the consumers. Trade Dress refers to the packaging or appearance of a product including, shape, size and colour which makes it distinguishable in the eyes of consumers and helps to develop the reputation and goodwill of the brand.
Concept of Trade Dress
The Trademark Act of 1999 does not directly define Trade dress; however, it can be interpreted from the various definitions under Section 2 of the Act. Section 2(zb) defines a trademark as a mark that distinguishes goods or services including shape, packaging and colour combinations. Section 2(m) defines Mark to include shape of goods, packaging and colour combinations, and, Section 2(q) defines Package broadly. Together these sections help to interpret and understand the concept of Trade Dress.
Protection of Trade Dress
Trade Dress refers to the visual appearance of a product, including size, shape, colour, packaging and design. While the Trademark Act, of 1999 lacks a separate provision for trade dress and its protection, it is protected under the common law of passing off. In order to qualify for this protection, the design must gain recognition over time or be inherently distinctive to prevent confusion amongst the consumers.
Judicial Developments
The judiciary has played a major role in bringing clarity to the concept and developing the laws related to trade dress and its protection in a number of landmark judgements. In Colgate Palmolive Company vs. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., the court laid down the test for determining deceptive similarity stating that even substantial imitation of colour combinations, design or packaging can cause confusion among the consumers. Colgate claimed its red-white tooth powder packaging had gained goodwill, while Anchor allegedly copied it. The court confirmed that trademark law protects trade dress, including colour combinations unless the colours are intrinsically useful (e.g., red for lipstick, blue for ink).
Similarly, in Cadbury India Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products, Cadbury sued Neeraj Food Products for using the trademark "James Bond", which was phonetically similar to "Gems Bond", and for copying its chocolate packaging. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Cadbury, restraining Neeraj from using the deceptively similar packaging and trademark, preventing consumer confusion and protecting Cadbury’s goodwill.
On 15th January 2025, the Delhi High Court in its decision in KRBL Limited v. Praveen Kumar Buyyani, emphasized on the importance of trade dress protection. KRBL Ltd., the complainant in the case, claimed that the trademark "BHARAT GATE" for rice was misleadingly similar to "INDIA GATE." The court found that "India" and "Bharat" had conceptual and phonetic similarities, as well as visual similarities in the packaging. It rejected the defendant's allegations of distinctive trade dress, concluding that the goal was to profit from the "INDIA GATE" brand's goodwill. The decision emphasizes the court's position on unfair competition and trade dress rights. (Read more at LegalWiki)
Conclusion
Protection of trade dress is essential for preserving brand uniqueness and consumer trust. This concept is still evolving in India and the courts have been playing a major role in this development. The judiciary's dedication to protecting trade dress rights is reaffirmed by the Bharat Gate v. India Gate decision. Enhancing the legal structures and enforcement procedures will help businesses to protect their distinctive identities and promote fair competition in the market.
