Understanding How India’s Courts Are Protecting Brand Identity Through Trade Dress

Introduction

You know that feeling, when you’re strolling through a pharmaceutical aisle and you instantly spot a product? Even from a distance where the label can’t be read? For instance, if a consumer picks up a tube of The Derma Co. serum from a pharmacy shelf, there are high chances that the consumer instantly notices its clean orange-and-white color palette and minimalist sans-serif typography. This phenomenon is called brand identity, and in the vocabulary of Intellectual Property Rights; this is known as TRADE DRESS. This recognizable visual language is not simply a good design, but this is a tool for consumers to identify the source of goods/services. There are several elements, such as color schemes, design of packaging, layout and typographical work, when combined, work to formulate a distinctive visual appearance for consumers, that they begin to associate it with a particular brand. From a legal perspective, such visual features may acquire significance under trademark and trade dress protection.

Due to the boom in India’s Direct to Consumer [D2C] startup, this issue is now legally urgent. The homegrown brands such as MAMAEARTH, boAt, Sugar Cosmetics, etc. have built their market presence not merely because of high quality products but also due to a well curated visual identity. As these brands expand, there are high chances that the emerging competitors might replicate not just the brand name but the overall identity of these brands. Such imitation can lead to blurring the distinction between the competing goods/services, eventually misleading the consumers. The legal response to such issues lies in the doctrine of trade dress protection under trademark law.

This blog explores the conceptual foundation of trade dress protection in India, even when the statutory definition of Trade dress is missing from the Indian Trademark Law.

TRADE DRESS: How and why does it matter?

Trade Dress is a concept that originated in American jurisprudence under the Lanham Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of the United States described TRADE DRESS as “total image and overall appearance” of a product^[1].  However, these terms are not explicitly defined under Indian statutes, its practical counterparts are equally recognizable under Indian law through combined interpretations of trademark provisions and various judicial precedents.

Broadly, trade dress would include various visual and aesthetic elements associated with a good/service, such as:

• Product Packaging: This includes external representation of the product such as shape, color arrangement, layout and labelling.

• Product Configuration: This refers to distinctive shape and the design of the product itself.

• Service Trade Dress: This includes the physical market presence of the product/services. Such as décor, layout, and overall look and feel of a retail outlet or restaurant.

For Indian startups, trade dress becomes very important because a substantial portion of their brand value is embedded in the visual aesthetic rather than solely in wordmarks and logos. There are various startups that have demonstrated how a consistent visual identity can itself function as a powerful source identifier. Over a period of time, the consumer recognizes the brand without reading the name, or looking at a mark but simply by looking at the overall aesthetics of the product. The competitors take an undue advantage of this and consumers are deceived that these products/services originate from or are associated with the brand that they trust. In essence, protecting a trade dress is not just about safeguarding color scheme or shape but it is also about protecting the story that a brand tells on the shelf. Therefore, safeguarding helps brands to maintain the distinctiveness, eventually preserving the goodwill of the businesses that they’ve built over the years.

This is   an intersecting point between branding and legal protection, that makes the Trade Marks Act, 1999 a vital instrument to protect the Trade Dress.

Legal Foundation Under Trade Marks Act 1999

The Trade Marks Act does not explicitly define “trade dress”. However, the judiciary has always interpreted the Act’s definitional provisions broadly to include trade dress within the scope of trademark protection. As a result, trade dress protection in India does not come from any specific provision of trademark law but is a result of expansive judicial interpretation.

There are few relevant provisions such as:

• Section 2 (zb): This defines “trade mark” as a mark which is capable of being represented graphically and capable of distinguishing goods or services.

• Section 2 (m): This is an inclusive definition that says “mark” includes a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colors or any combination thereof.

• Section 2 (q): This is also an inclusive definition that defines “package”. It states that the package includes any case, box, container, covering, receptacle, wrapper, or label.

On several occasions, the court has given an importance to reading all these provisions together and held that overall get up, color scheme, and packaging of a product falls within the ambit of protectable mark under the act^[2]. The same approach was observed in the case of Colgate Palmolive Co. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.^[3], where the High Court of Delhi laid the groundwork for protection of Trade Dress in India, establishing that in order to protect the visual brand elements, the court will not wait for explicit statutory recognition.

In order to make trade dress protectable, there are 2 requirements that generally need to be satisfied. The first and the foremost condition is that trade dress needs to be DISTINCTIVE. It means that the consumers associate the visual appearance of the good/service with a particular brand. Distinctiveness can be “inherent” as in design or overall appeal is so unusual or unique that it is easily distinguishable from others’ goods/services, or distinctiveness can be “acquired through use” as well. The distinctiveness that is acquired through use is often regarded as “secondary meaning” by the court, determining that the mark has become prominent due to long and consistent use. The second condition is that the trade dress must be “non-functional”. It states that features that are essential to the function of the product or that affect its cost or quality, then that cannot be a subject matter of protection under trademark law, as allowing so, would affect the competition in the market^[4]. 

The Strategic Necessity of Trade Dress in The Modern Era

Traditionally, trademarks were taken for the name or logo of the brand, often missing out the broader aesthetic elements, unprotected. However, in this modern era of digital marketplace, the necessity of trade dress protection has increased insignificantly. It is because the consumer purchasing decisions are made within seconds, mostly driven by thumbnail images, packaging aesthetics and overall visual appeal. 

However, as discussed above the vulnerability of the Indian startups to trade dress infringement has intensified over the past few years. This change is happening due to underlying structural issues and market conditions, each of which requires legal scrutiny. When a brand’s “look” becomes its identity, copying that becomes the easiest and convenient option for the competitors^[5]. In the case of Honasa Consumer Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Unilever Ltd.^[6], Mamaearth took legal action against a competitor for using similar packaging. The court also recognized that even a relatively new startup can build enough goodwill and through its visual identity to claim protection. Therefore, establishing that in today’s world your packaging is not merely just a design but it’s your brand.

Additionally, in the era of e-commerce, it is evidently easier to start any business. One thing that is still easier than starting a business is “copying a business”. A startup can launch a business just to see its dupes within weeks. These days, the investors are paying close attention to this, as now when the startups are raising funds, it is no more about a good idea but to also identify whether the brand’s overall identity is protected and defensible. The overall identity and aesthetic presence of a brand heavily contributes to the valuation of the startup. That’s why trade dress is no more a legal concept but it is becoming a key business and investment strategy.

Recent Judicial Development of Trade Dress Law in India

Indian Courts with the help of various judgments have gradually widened the scope of trade dress protection. It began with product packaging and shapes, and has now extended to covering service spaces. In the case of Ferrero Spa & Ors. v. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors.^[7], the Delhi High Court granted an injunction against jars that closely resembled the distinctive Nutella container. The Court observed that even the shape of a product can be protected as a trade dress. This decision marks an expanding scope of protection for non-traditional brand elements.

The case of Happi Planet Eco Products P. Ltd. v. Ravi Malani Trading as Febway India & Ors^[8] is one of the most direct and relevant judgments of recent times, with respect to trade dress protection of start-ups in India. This judgment is important in 3 ways:

• Firstly, it shows that even new startups can get trade dress protection, if they can prove distinctiveness and goodwill, with factors like revenue growth and funding.

• Secondly, the court applied an anti-dissection rule, focusing on the overall impression created by the product rather than individual elements.

• Lastly, the use of dynamic injunction reflects that the courts are adapting the reality of e-commerce, where enforcement needs to be fast and flexible.

Another recent development is the Madras High Court’s decision in Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP. v. M/s Rasnam Foods Pvt Ltd^[9]. In this case, the Court held that even after the end of a franchise agreement, the continuous use of a similar red-and-green colour scheme led to a creation of confusion with the well-known “Sangeetha” brand and eventually amounting to passing off. The judgment is significant as it confirms that trade dress protection extends beyond product packaging to service spaces such as restaurants, and also that contractual termination does not end IP obligations. The Court’s focus on the overall look and feel, such as colours, signage, and ambience highlights its practical approach towards protecting brand identity in today’s experience-driven market.

However, even after a positive judicial trend, trade dress protection faces notable imitations. As in the case of Cipla Limited v. MK Pharmaceutical^[10] The High Court of Delhi, held that distinctiveness with respect to pharmaceuticals must be measured on the basis of chemical composition rather than packaging, shape, or color.

This evolution showcases that law is keeping up with the pace of changing realities of fast moving marketspaces, while still maintaining a strong legal foundation.

Conclusion

The swift growth of India’s D2C sector shows an important shift. Today, a brand’s visual identity is not just about marketing, but also, it is a proven legal asset. The question whether “can you trademark a vibe?” can be answered with a qualified “yes” under Indian Trademark law. 

The Indian Judiciary is providing protection in such cases. Even though the expressed definition of Trade dress is missing from the Indian statutes, the courts are granting interim reliefs by way of injunctions to deal with deceptions.

However, trade dress protection is not automatic. A startup must show that its design is distinctive, has built goodwill, and is being misused. Startups that treat their brand’s look as an important IP asset and take steps to protect it early, are in a much stronger position to benefit from the law.

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

^[1] Two Pesos, Inc. V. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992); see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. V. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) (defining trade dress as ‘total image and overall appearance’).

^[2] Trade Marks Act, 1999, ss. 2(m), 2(q), 2(zb) (India), read together as applied in Colgate Palmolive Co. V. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 478 (Del).

^[3] Colgate Palmolive Co. V. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2003 (27) PTC 478 (Del) (J.D. Kapoor J.).

^[4] IIPRD, ‘Concept of Trade Dress in India’ (March 2022), available at https://www.iiprd.com/concept-of-trade-dress-in-india/ (accessed April 2026); see also N. Ranga Rao & Sons v. Anil Garg & Ors. (Delhi High Court) for factors governing distinctiveness analysis.

^[5] ipwatchdog, ‘Run, Don’t Walk: Dupe Culture, Trade Dress, and the Growing Fight Over Brand Identity’ (Jan. 12, 2026), https://ipwatchdog.com/2026/01/12/run-dont-walk-dupe-culture-trade-dress-growing-fight-brand-identity/.

^[6] Remfry & Sagar, ‘Mamaearth: Start-Up Fends Off Infringer’, https://www.remfry.com/mamaearth-start-up-fends-off-infringer/ (last accessed Apr. 8, 2026).

^[7] Ferrero Spa & Ors. V. Abhimanyu Prakash & Ors., 2025 SCC online Del 8956 (Delhi H.C.).

^[8] Happi Planet Eco Products P. Ltd. V. Ravi Malani Trading as Febway India & Ors., CS(COMM) 79/2026, 2026 SCC online Del 351 (Delhi High Court, January 28, 2026, Tushar Rao Gedela J.).

^[9] Sangeetha Caterers and Consultants LLP v. Rasnam Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., C.S.(Comm. Div.) No. 116 of 2023, 2026:MHC:1249 (Madras H.C., March 25, 2026, Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.).

^[10] Cipla Limited v/s M.K. Pharmaceuticals MIPR 2007 (3) 170.