Walk into any grocery store and watch how consumers make purchasing decisions. Very few carefully scrutinize every word on a package. Most rely on what they remember: the colours, the layout, the imagery, the overall visual impression. In fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) markets, packaging often functions as a source identifier long before a consumer reads the brand name.
That commercial reality sits at the heart of the Delhi High Court’s decision on 29 May 2026 in GRM Foodkraft Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. KS Agro Impex & Anr.1, where the Court delivered a significant ruling on deceptive similarity in product packaging. The judgment underscores an increasingly important principle in Indian trademark jurisprudence: a prominently displayed house mark cannot shield a trader from liability for passing off or copyright infringement where the overall trade dress, visual get-up, structural arrangement and colour combination have been substantially replicated.
The decision is particularly noteworthy for FMCG businesses because it clarifies that courts will look beyond textual distinctions and assess how an average consumer actually encounters products in the marketplace. In doing so, the Court has strengthened protection for distinctive packaging and emphasized that “smart copying” remains copying.
How the Dispute Arose
The dispute arose from the Plaintiffs’ sale of Golden Sella Basmati Rice under the house mark “10X” and sub-brand “Zarda King” in distinctive 30 kg green-and-gold packaging featuring stylized Arabic-style lettering, lanterns, stars, crescent motifs, architectural imagery and a pulao dish. According to the Plaintiffs, the packaging acquired substantial goodwill and consumer recognition through extensive sales and advertisements.
In July 2024, the Plaintiffs discovered that KS Agro Impex had begun selling competing rice under the mark “Double Chabi Zarda Special” in allegedly similar 30 kg packaging. The Plaintiffs instituted proceedings for passing off, trade dress infringement and copyright infringement, alleging that the Defendants had copied the essential visual features of their packaging to capitalize on the Plaintiffs’ goodwill. An ex parte interim injunction was granted on 1 August 2024, and the present judgment concerned confirmation of that injunction.
The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs could not claim exclusivity over common trade elements such as colours, stars, lanterns, crescents, architectural motifs or food imagery and further contended that “Zarda” was generic. The Defendants also pointed out that the Plaintiffs had accepted a disclaimer during prosecution of their trademark application recording that no exclusive rights were claimed over the word “Zarda.” Relying on Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories2, the Defendants argued that the prominent use of the house mark “DOUBLE CHABI” constituted sufficient “added matter” to avoid consumer confusion.
Rejecting these contentions, the Delhi High Court held that deceptive similarity must be assessed on the basis of overall commercial impression rather than isolated differences. Relying on Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore3, the Court applied the anti-dissection rule and found substantial similarities in the colour combination, stylized lettering, thematic imagery and overall layout of the rival packaging.
The Court further held that although individual visual elements may be common to trade, their distinctive combination may nevertheless acquire protectable trade dress significance. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on Dabur India Ltd. v. Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd.4, Marico Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar5, Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.6 and Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products7.
Rejection of the House Mark Defense
Importantly, the Court rejected the Defendants’ reliance on the “DOUBLE CHABI” house mark. Referring to Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co.8, Cadbury India Ltd. v. Neeraj Food Products9, Skechers USA Inc. v. Pure Play Sports10, Allied Blenders & Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Hermes Distillery Pvt. Ltd.11 and the Division Bench ruling in Dabur India Limited v. Emami Limited12, the Court held that a different house mark does not eliminate deceptive similarity where the overall packaging remains substantially copied.
The Court also recognized the doctrines of initial interest confusion and “smart copying,” relying on Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agarwal13 and Baker v. Master Printers Union of New Jersey14. It observed that superficial distinctions introduced while retaining substantial visual similarity are actionable under passing off law.
Copyright Protection in Packaging
Further, the Court prima facie accepted the Plaintiffs’ copyright claim, holding that the packaging constituted an “original artistic work” under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and that substantial reproduction of the artistic features attracted infringement under Section 51.
Considering that both products were sold in identical 30 kg packaging likely to be stacked together in wholesale and retail markets, the Court emphasized that consumers often rely on visual memory and overall appearance rather than detailed textual examination. Accordingly, the Court held that the Plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, and therefore continued the interim injunction restraining use of the impugned packaging.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling significantly strengthens Indian trade dress jurisprudence by clarifying that passing off law protects the overall commercial identity associated with a product and not merely isolated trademarks or logos. The judgment clarifies that combinations of otherwise common visual elements may collectively acquire distinctiveness and that courts will prioritize consumer perception and overall commercial impression over isolated distinctions.
Equally important is the Court’s observation that superficial modifications and prominent house marks may not shield a trader where the overall packaging reflects deliberate imitation. By expressly recognizing the doctrines of anti-dissection, initial interest confusion and “smart copying,” the judgment provides important guidance for future FMCG packaging disputes.
For brand owners, in-house counsel and trademark practitioners, the ruling underscores the commercial value of distinctive packaging and demonstrates that Indian courts are increasingly willing to protect trade dress rights where competitors attempt to capitalize on established goodwill through deceptively similar visual presentation.
Expositor(s): Adv. Aparna Shukla
