Dabur India Ltd v. M/S Mughals Herbal Products & Anr

CS(OS) 388/2009

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dabur India Ltd in a passing off suit against M/S Mughals Herbal Products. The court found that the defendant's rose water packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's established 'DABUR GULABARI' trade dress, specifically noting similarities in color combination and overall configuration. Given Dabur's long-standing reputation, extensive advertising spend, and market presence, the court granted a permanent injunction, affirming the protection of distinctive trade dress under common law.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court
Case Number
CS(OS) 388/2009
Judge(s)
Mukta Gupta

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court. Understanding the court's reasoning in Dabur India Ltd vs M/S Mughals Herbal Products & Anr is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademark(T)OP(TM).No.56 of 2023

Abdulla A Olia (Director of M/s Imex Industries (I) Pvt.Ltd.)vsM/s. Shri Ashapura Hardware & The Registrar of Trade Marks

The Madras High Court dismissed the Original Petition filed by Abdulla A Olia seeking rectification or removal of the registered trademark 'STAR IMEX DEVICE' (No. 1625661). The court noted that the petitioner failed to appear at multiple scheduled hearings despite receiving proper notice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.

trademarkA No. 4679 of 2025 (C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 154 OF 2025)

J Nithyanandham, Partner of M/s M.V.S.Gramany and SonsvsM/s M.V.S.Gramany and Sons (A Registered Partnership Firm)

The suit was filed by a registered partnership firm and its partners against Mr. Gautham Nithyanandham (Proprietor of M/s TVS Snuff Company) alleging infringement of the trademark 'J.S.Madras Snuff' and passing off using marks like 'M.V.S.Gramany'. The second defendant filed an application seeking reference of this dispute to arbitration, but the court dismissed the application.

trademarkIPDATM/144/2023, IPDATM/149/2023

Biswanath Hosiery Mills LtdvsMicky Metals Ltd And Anr

In this trademark rectification proceeding before the Calcutta High Court, the court noted that the petitioner's advocate-on-record was absent and no representative could furnish instructions. Due to the wastage of judicial time caused by the non-appearance, the court directed Biswanath Hosiery Mills Ltd to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/- to the respondents. The matter has been adjourned for further hearing.

trademarkC.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 54/2024

Mankind Pharma LimitedvsThe Registrar Of Trade Marks

Mankind Pharma Limited appealed the Registrar of Trade Marks' refusal to register its mark PETKIND in Class 5, citing similarity to a prior application 'PETKIND PHARMA'. The Appellant argued that its extensive goodwill and established 'KIND Family of Marks' should prevail. The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection order.

trademarkOP(TM)No.3 of 2025

Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd.vsVivekananda Chintapalli

The Madras High Court allowed the petition filed by Qingdao Thunderobot Technology Co. Ltd., directing the removal of a confusingly similar trademark registration held by Vivekananda Chintapalli. The court found that the petitioner's inherently distinctive mark, used for e-gaming computer hardware, was strikingly similar to the respondent's registered mark in Class 9. Given the substantial turnover and commercial presence of the petitioner, the continued existence of the impugned entry was deemed likely to cause public confusion or deception.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call