Summary: The Delhi High Court stepped in to protect the “Zarda King” basmati rice brand, ruling that a competitor’s blend of minaret motifs, Urdu script, and specific typography was a deliberate attempt to copy the original packaging’s “overall impression” and mislead consumers in the crowded commodity market.
Introduction
When you buy that drink because you like its quirky-shaped bottle, or fondly recall the unique colour of that box of cookies your favourite aunt gifted you, you are subconsciously focusing on that product’s ‘trade dress’. Simply put, trade dress can be understood as the overall look and feel of a product or service that distinguishes it from others. It can take on many forms, including the packaging of a product, or even the environment in which services are provided. Multiple forms of intellectual property rights can be extended to trade dress, including trademark, design, and copyright.
This note discusses a recent decision from the Delhi High Court (GRM Foodkraft Pvt. Ltd. v. KS Agro Impex; CS(COMM) 637/2024; decision dated 29.5.2026), which adds to India’s evolving position on trade dress protection.
The case
The dispute revolved around allegations that the defendant had adopted packaging and overall product presentation (for bags of rice) deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff, causing confusion among consumers and amounting to passing off. While trademark disputes often focus on words or logos, this case brought the concept of trade dress to the forefront.
Here, the Court primarily addressed whether the defendant’s packaging was sufficiently similar to the plaintiff’s trade dress as to mislead an average consumer. In its decision, the Court reiterated a settled principle of trademark law, i.e., protection cannot be claimed over features that are common to the trade. A plaintiff must demonstrate that the combination of visual elements has acquired distinctiveness and serves as a source identifier in the minds of consumers.
Significantly, the Delhi High Court rejected the argument that the defendant’s prominent display of its own house mark was sufficient to negate the likelihood of confusion. The Court emphasized that in a trade dress and passing off action, the overall commercial impression created by the packaging is often more important than the presence of a distinguishing brand name. Where the defendant adopts a packaging get-up closely resembling that of the plaintiff, merely adding a house mark may not cure the deceptive similarity. Consumers, particularly of fast-moving consumer goods sold through visual recall, may continue to associate the defendant’s product with the plaintiff despite the presence of a different source identifier.
The judgment also reinforces the principle that a defendant cannot escape liability by making only minor cosmetic changes while replicating the essential features of a competitor’s packaging. Where a party tries to come as close as possible to the competing trade dress and then relies on a few distinguishing elements as a defence, such differences may not be sufficient if the overall conduct suggests an intention to ride upon the competitor’s goodwill. This requires, not a mechanical exercise of comparing individual elements, but an evaluation of the overall impression and the honesty of adoption. In other words, the decision underscores that deliberate approximation, coupled with evidence of dishonesty, can outweigh isolated points of distinction.
Why context matters
The weight of the ruling might be lost without the context being clear: Both parties were marketing rice products in the same 30-kilogram packaging format, a category where products are conventionally stacked in retail outlets and viewed from a distance by consumers. The Court attached importance to the striking similarities in the visual presentation, including the same green-and-gold colour combination, similar placement of design elements, and the use of Urdu script. Viewed collectively, there was a strong case for deceptive similarity. The judgment, therefore, addressed the cumulative effect of several overlapping similarities in a highly specific market context.
A brief reference to the defendant’s case, here, is also called for. Both packages used the word “Zarda” in some form. The defendant argued that the word “Zarda” had been expressly disclaimed by the plaintiff in its trademark application, and thus, by extension, the plaintiff should not be permitted to claim exclusive rights over descriptive or non-distinctive elements associated with the product.
However, the dispute was not decided solely on the basis of the word mark, but on the overall trade dress and get-up of the packaging. Importantly, the defendant could not demonstrate that the green-and-gold colour scheme and the broader visual presentation were commonly used by other traders in the relevant market. Without such evidence, the defence was considerably weakened, and the plaintiff’s claim, of its trade dress having acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace, was relatively strengthened.
Key takeaways
The strength of trade dress law lies in evaluating the overall impression created by a package rather than dissecting it into individual components. A package may consist entirely of common elements, yet the unique arrangement of those elements may create a distinctive commercial identity. This decision also highlights that the house marks may not be sufficient as a distinguishing feature in a trade dress, and just as with trademarks, honesty in adoption is key. A defendant who cannot prove that its trade dress was, say, commonly used in the trade, might find it difficult to successfully defend its position.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese