Green Packaging as Brand Identity: Trade Dress Protection for Sustainable Fashion

Introduction : Sustainable fashion in India has moved beyond fabric and production processes. Brands are increasingly investing in distinctive eco-friendly packaging, kraft paper boxes, earthy colour palettes, minimalist labelling with green motifs, reusable cloth bags, as visual identifiers that signal environmental commitment to consumers. This “green branding” has become a competitive asset, distinguishing eco-conscious labels in a crowded marketplace.

But as this packaging aesthetics gain commercial value, disputes are emerging. When does sustainable packaging qualify for trade dress protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999? Can brands monopolise common eco-friendly design elements like brown kraft paper, leaf symbols or recyclable icons?

The Legal Framework

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not explicitly define “trade dress”. However, Section 2(1)(zb) defines a “trademark” broadly as any mark capable of graphical representation and capable of distinguishing goods or services of one person from those of another. Section 2(1)(m) clarifies that a “mark” includes the shape of goods, their packaging, or a combination of colours.

Indian courts have consistently interpreted these provisions to protect trade dress, the overall visual appearance and commercial image of a product, encompassing packaging design, colour scheme, shape, layout, graphics and labelling. Unlike trademarks that protect specific words or logos, trade dress protects the total look and feel that consumers associate with a particular brand.

Two requirements must be satisfied for trade dress protection:

Distinctiveness: The packaging must be distinctive, either inherently or through acquired secondary meaning. Consumers must associate the visual appearance with a particular brand, not just with a product category.

Non-functionality: The trade dress must not be purely functional. Features dictated by utility, cost-efficiency or technical requirements cannot be monopolised through trademark law.

These principles, well-established in FMCG and consumer goods cases, are now being applied to sustainable fashion packaging with nuanced challenges.

The Rise of Green Branding in Indian Fashion

Sustainable fashion brands in India have adopted consistent visual languages to communicate their environmental ethos. Common elements include, earthy colour palettes (browns, greens, beiges), kraft paper or recycled cardboard packaging, minimalist typography, leaf, tree or nature-inspired motifs. These elements serve dual purposes. They signal environmental commitment to conscious consumers and create brand recognition in a competitive market. 

However, many of these elements are also functional or common in the trade. Kraft paper is widely used because it is biodegradable and cost-effective. Earthy colours are prevalent because they evoke nature. Leaf motifs are ubiquitous in eco-branding. This creates a tension - how can brands protect distinctive combinations when individual elements are either functional or commonly used?

The Jurisprudence so far

Happi Planet Eco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Malani

In Happi Planet, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining counterfeiters from using Happi Planet’s trademarks and distinctive packaging.

Happi Planet, a home and personal care brand with strong eco-friendly positioning, had established a distinctive trade dress featuring unique colour schemes, visual motifs and overall presentation style. The court found that the defendants were selling products with near-identical branding and packaging, causing consumer confusion and diluting Happi Planet’s goodwill.

The court’s order restrained defendants from using Happi Planet’s trademarks and distinctive packaging in any manner, and directed e-commerce platforms to block infringing listings. While not exclusively a fashion case, Happi Planet’s eco-friendly positioning and the court’s protection of its distinctive green packaging provides a template for sustainable fashion brands.

The key takeaway: even in the eco-friendly space, distinctive combinations of colours, motifs and layout can acquire secondary meaning and qualify for protection. The court focused on the overall commercial impression, not individual elements.

Bokashi Bucket Case

In a related development, the Kerala High Court granted interim protection to the registered trademark “Bokashi Bucket”, restraining a manufacturer from producing identical compost bins under the same name. 

While this case involved a trademark rather than trade dress, it signals judicial willingness to protect eco-friendly product branding. The court recognised that consumers associate the “Bokashi Bucket” name with a specific eco-composting solution, and imitation would cause confusion.

This reasoning extends to fashion packaging: if consumers associate specific sustainable packaging with a particular brand, imitation, even with different brand names, may constitute passing off.

Emami v. Dabur

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited (2026) is instructive. Emami’s Navratna Ayurvedic Oil had distinctive packaging: a specific bottle shape, red colour scheme, herbal imagery, cooling indicators and overall layout. Dabur launched a competing product with similar packaging. The court held that even if individual elements like red colour or herbal imagery were common in the trade, their distinctive combination had acquired secondary meaning through decades of continuous use and advertising.

The court applied the “overall commercial impression” test: would an average consumer with imperfect recollection likely be confused? The answer was yes. Dabur’s packaging was held deceptively similar, and an injunction was granted.

For sustainable fashion, this precedent is significant. Brands cannot claim monopoly over common eco-elements like brown kraft paper or leaf symbols. But if their specific combination, layout and presentation create a distinctive overall impression, that may be protectable.

The Functionality Challenge: When Green Is Generic

The most contentious issue in sustainable fashion trade dress cases is functionality. Many eco-friendly packaging features are adopted for practical, environmental or cost reasons.

Under trade dress law, functional features cannot be monopolised. If a feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product, or affects its cost or quality, it is functional and cannot be protected through trademark.

This creates a dilemma for sustainable fashion brands. Their packaging is often designed to be environmentally functional. If courts deem these features functional, brands may struggle to establish protectable trade dress.

Indian courts have not yet directly addressed this tension in fashion cases. However, the Harpic v. Godrej dispute over bottle design provides guidance.

In that case, Reckitt alleged Godrej copied Harpic’s distinctive bent-neck bottle design. The Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench expressed serious doubt about granting trademark protection to a bottle shape after design rights had expired, viewing it as an attempt to indirectly revive an expired design right. 

The court held that similarity in functional dispenser shape alone was insufficient for infringement. The registered device had to be viewed as a whole, and Harpic’s overall trade dress was visually distinct from Godrej’s. 

For sustainable fashion, this suggests: if packaging features are primarily functional (e.g., a reusable bag’s shape dictated by utility), courts may be reluctant to grant trade dress protection. But if the overall combination of elements creates a distinctive non-functional impression, protection may be available.

Distinctiveness in a Crowded Green Marketplace

Another challenge is proving distinctiveness. As more brands adopt eco-friendly packaging, the marketplace becomes visually crowded. Consumers may associate brown kraft boxes and leaf motifs with “sustainable products” generally, not with any specific brand.

To establish acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning), brands must show long and continuous use, substantial sales and advertising, consumer recognition, consistency.

For newer sustainable fashion brands, this is challenging. Many are startups without decades of use. They must rely on inherent distinctiveness, showing that their specific combination of elements is unique enough to immediately identify source.

The Happi Planet case suggests this is possible. Despite being a relatively new brand, the court found its distinctive colour schemes, visual motifs and overall presentation style had acquired protectable goodwill. The key was the specific combination, not individual elements.

Passing Off vs. Registered Trade Dress

Most sustainable fashion brands do not register their packaging as trade dress. They rely on the common law remedy of passing off, preserved under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act.

Passing off requires proving three elements:

1. Goodwill: Reputation and consumer recognition associated with the packaging,

2. Misrepresentation: Defendant’s packaging is deceptively similar, likely to cause confusion,

3. Damage: Likelihood of harm to goodwill or sales.

Registered trade dress provides stronger protection. Infringement under Section 29 can be established by showing deceptive similarity, without needing to prove goodwill or damage. However, registration requires proving distinctiveness at the time of application, which can be difficult for new brands.

For sustainable fashion, passing off remains the primary route. The Emami v. Dabur and Happi Planet cases were both passing off actions, yet courts granted robust protection based on overall impression and likelihood of confusion.

The Average Consumer Test

Indian courts apply the “average consumer with imperfect recollection” test in trade dress cases. The question is not whether a meticulous side-by-side comparison reveals differences, but whether a typical consumer, seeing the products in the marketplace with imperfect memory, would likely be confused.

This test is particularly relevant for sustainable fashion. Consumers shopping for eco-friendly products may not scrutinise packaging closely. They may rely on overall visual cues, colour, layout, motifs, to identify trusted brands.

In Edible Products (India) Ltd v. Shalimar Chemical Works, the court emphasised that the overall trade dress and total visual impression, not isolated differences, is decisive. Minor variations in text or logos do not negate confusion if the overall look is similar. 

For sustainable fashion brands, this means, even if competitors use different brand names or slightly different motifs, if the overall eco-aesthetic is deceptively similar, courts may find passing off.

Conclusion

The emerging jurisprudence suggests Indian courts are willing to protect distinctive sustainable fashion packaging under trade dress law. The key is distinctiveness and non-functionality. Brands that invest in unique combinations of eco-friendly elements can protect their overall look and feel.

However, courts are unlikely to grant monopoly over common green branding elements. Kraft paper, earthy colours and leaf motifs remain available to all sustainable brands. Protection lies in the specific arrangement, not the individual components.

This balance serves both brand owners and consumers. It prevents free-riding on established brand identities while ensuring new entrants can compete using common eco-aesthetics. As sustainable fashion grows, trade dress law will play an increasingly important role in shaping how green branding evolves in India.

Author: Amrita Pradhan in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney

References

1. Happi Planet Eco Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Ravi Malani, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 351 (Delhi High Court, 28 January 2026).

2. Emami Limited v. Dabur India Limited, CS(COMM) 532/2023 (Delhi High Court, 31 January 2026).

3. Godrej Consumer Products Ltd v. Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt Ltd, Calcutta High Court Division Bench, February 2026.

4. Edible Products (India) Ltd v. Shalimar Chemical Works Pvt Ltd, FMAT No. 189 of 2024 (Delhi High Court, 3 December 2025).

5. Parle Products v. J.P. & Co., AIR 1972 SC 1369.

6. Colgate Palmolive Company v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 1 (Delhi High Court).

7. Gorbatschow Wodka v. John Distilleries, 2011 (48) PTC 209 (Bombay High Court).

8. LiveLaw Biz, ‘Delhi High Court Temporarily Bars Sale Of Products Using Happi Planet Mark And Packaging’ (January 2026).